United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
905479029A
Volume 1
Menomonee River
Pilot Watershed Study
Summary And
Recommendations
Menomonee River
-------
The United States Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution
to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA, was
established in Region V. Chicago to provide a specific focus on the water
quality concerns of the Great Lakes. GLNPO provides funding and personnel
support to the International Joint Commission activities under the US -
Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Several land use water quality studies have been funded to support the
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) under the
Agreement to address specific objectives related to land use pollution to the
Great Lakes. This report describes some of the work supported by this Office
to carry out PLUARG study objectives.
We hope that the information and data contained herein will help planners
and managers of pollution control agencies make better decisions for
carrying forward their pollution control responsibilities.
Madonna F. McGrath
Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
EPA-905/4-79-020-A
MENOMONEE RIVER PILOT WATERSHED STUDY
Volume I
Summary and Recommendations
by
G. Chesters - Wisconsin Water Resources Center
J.G. Konrad - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
G.V. Simsiman - Wisconsin Water Resources Center
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois
EPA Grant No. R005142
Grants Officer
Ralph G. Christensen
Great Lakes National Program Office
This study, funded by a Great Lakes Program grant from the U.S. EPA,
was conducted as part of the Task C-Pilot Watershed Program for the
International Joint Commission's Reference Group on Pollution from
Land Use Activities.
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V
536 SOUTH CLARK STREET, ROOM 932
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Bgulevard, 12th Hoc*
Chicago, \l 60604-35S3
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V Chicago,
and approved for publication. Mention of trade names of commercial
products does not constitute endoresement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Title Page i
Disclaimer ii
Contents iii
Figures v
Tables vi
Acknowledgments ix,x
1. Introduction 1
Objectives 3
Research Summary 3
2. Characteristics of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed 5
Land Data Management System... 5
Remote Sensing 5
Description of the Watershed 8
3. Surface Water Quality 13
Significance of Nonpoint Pollution in the Menomonee
River Watershed 13
Variations in Nonpoint Pollution Due to Land Use
Activities 13
Temporal Variations in Nonpoint Pollutant Loads 25
4. Effects of Tributary Inputs on Lake Michigan During High
Flows 28
5. Land Use/Water Quality Modeling 36
LANDRUN 36
Application of LANDRUN to Watershed Studies 36
MEUL 38
Simulation of loadings in 48 subwatersheds 42
Empirical Modeling of Runoff Quality 48
6. Dispersibility of Soils and Elemental Composition of
Soils and Sediments 52
7. Availability of Pollutants Associated with River Sediments 55
Availability of Phosphorus in Suspended Sediments and
Recessional Shoreline Soils 55
Availability of Nitrogen in Suspended and Bottom
Sediments 57
Availability of the Trace Metals, Copper, Lead and Zinc
in Suspended and Bottom Sediments 60
8. Groundwater 62
Field Data Quantifying Groundwater-Surface Water
Interaction 62
Potential Impacts from Land Use Activities 64
Groundwater Modeling and Extrapolation to Other
Watersheds 66
iii
-------
9. Atmospheric Chemistry.. 71
Lead and Phosphorus 71
PCBs and PAHS 71
10. Recommendations 76
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 "The Cell," the basic areal unit of the Land EMS 7
2 Generalized land use in the Menomonee River Watershed,
1975 9
3 The 48 subwatersheds 11
4 Locations of monitoring stations in the Menomonee River
Watershed 14
5 Relationships of event flow and parameter concentrations
at 70th St. (413005) during spring 1977 26
6 Milwaukee Harbor 30
7 Visible plumes following July 18, 1977 event 35
8 A schematic representation of pollutant transport 37
9 Distribution of simulated sediment loadings in the
Menomonee River Watershed—summer 1977 45
10 Simulated (S) and monitored (M) sediment loadings
(kg/ha) from area adjacent to mainstem monitoring
stations—summer, 1977. 47
11 Regression coefficients for model for total suspended
solids 49
12 Water table of glacial aquifer—Fall 1976 65
13 Modeling areas and observation well locations 69
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Typical applications of the land data management system
developed under the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study: May 1976 to February 1978 6
2 Urban and rural land uses inventories for the Menomonee
River Watershed in 1970 and 1975 as determined by
SEWRPC 10
3 Land use categories (1975) in the 48 subwatersheds of the
Menomonee River Watershed 12
4 Land use categories (1975) in areas tributary to the
main stem monitoring stations.... 15
5 Characteristics of the drainage area of the predominantly
single land use monitoring stations 16
6 Loadings and relative contributions from nonpoint and
point sources of pollution for suspended sediment and
total P at 70th St. (413005) 17
7 Comparison of mean concentration of selected parameters
during events in 1976 and 1977 with water quality
criteria at the predominantly single land use
monitoring sites. 18
8 Seasonal and annual event unit area loadings of
suspended solids and flow-weighted average concentrations
at main stem river stations 19
9 Seasonal loadings of suspended solids at the predominantly
single land use monitoring sites 20
10 Seasonal and annual event unit area loadings of total P
and flow-weighted concentrations at main stem river
stations 21
11 Seasonal loadings of total phosphorus at the predominantly
single land use monitoring sites 22
vi
-------
Number Page
12 Seasonal event unit area loadings of lead and flow-
weighted average concentrations at main stem river
stations 23
13 Seasonal loadings of lead at the predominantly single
land use monitoring sites 24
14 Annual water and pollutant loadings to the Milwaukee
Harbor 29
15 Mean annual surface concentrations of pollutants in the
harbor region 31
16 Water quality data, current velocities and directions at
harbor stations during three events 33
17 Simulated pollutant loadings for urban land uses under
slope category B during an average year 39
18 Simulated pollutant loadings for land uses on essentially
pervious areas 40
19 Average parameter loadings for the land use categories
designated in the Menomonee River Watershed 41
20 Relative degree of hazard and parameter loadings at
river mouth for suspended sediment, total phosphorus
and lead for various land use categories in the
Menomonee River Watershed 43
21 Water and sediment loadings estimated by LANDRUN for
each land use in the Menomonee River Watershed—summer
1977 46
22 Coefficients for final regression equations for various
degrees of urbanization 50
23 Comparisons of predictive capabilities of model for
suspended solids loads 51
24 Dispersion ratio of the clay-sized fraction 54
25 Percentage of phosphorus in suspended sediments in
available and non-available fractions.. 56
26 Comparison of dissolved and particulate available P
loadings in tributaries 58
-------
Number Page
27 Comparison of dissolved and particulate available N
loadings 59
28 Mean concentrations of total and available Cu, Pb, and
Zn in tributary suspended sediments 61
29 Summary of calculations of groundwater discharge to the
Menomonee River System 63
30 Groundwater contributions to surface water quality for
the Menomonee River Basin: Potential impacts from land
use activities. 67
31 Simulated chloride concentrations compared to field
data 70
32 Dry deposition of atmospheric lead to Lake Michigan from
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 1, 1976 to April 28, 1977... 72
33 Inputs of PCBs to Lake Michigan 74
34 Dry flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to
Lake Michigan 75
35 Wet flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to
Lake Michigan 75
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TO SPONSORING AGENCIES
The personnel of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study wish to
express sincere thanks to the U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission,
its Windsor Office Personnel and the Pollution from Land Use Reference Group
for the high quality of organization of the Program devoted to an
examination of the implications of land use and land use practices on the
Great Lakes. A special debt of gratitude is owed to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for financial support and to its officials in the Chicago
Region V Office. These individuals provided the freedom for thought and
experimentation essential for the success of an international cooperative
program of this magnitude.
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO PROJECT PERSONNEL
The principal investigators of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study are indebted to the following personnel. These individuals maintained
the essential flexibility of thought needed to accomplish the objectives of
a program under continuous scrutiny and hence subject to improvement through
changes initiated by Study personnel, the International Reference Group
members and the personnel in all facets of the PLUARG program:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
D. Balsiger
C. Conway
R. Bannerman
K. Meives
D. Becker
D. Misterek
University of Wisconsin System Water Resources Center
M. Anderson
E. Brodsky
P. Emmling
B. Meyers
A. Andren
J. Delfino
J. Goodrich-Mahoney
V. Novotny (Marquette
University)
D. Armstrong
A. Dong
G. Herold
G. Peterson
(Penn State U.)
T. Stolzenberg E. Tilson
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
P. Clavette L. Kawatski R. Videkovich
T. Bokelman
M. Swanson
K. Baun
C. Eisen
F. Madison
F. Scarpace
S. Walesh
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Concern for the effects of various land use activities on Great Lakes
water quality prompted the governments of the United States and Canada,
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of April 15, 1972, to direct
the International Joint Commission to conduct studies of the impact of land
use activities on the water quality of the Great Lakes Basin and to
recommend remedial measures for maintaining or improving Great Lakes water
quality.
To effect this undertaking, the International Joint Commission, through
the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, established the International Reference
Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG). The
Reference Group developed a study program which consisted of four major
tasks. Task A is devoted to the collection and assessment of management and
research information and in its later stages, to the critical analysis of
implications of potential recommendations. Task B required the preparation
of a land use inventory, largely from existing data, and secondly, the
analysis of trends in land use patterns and practices. Task C is the
detailed survey of selected watersheds to determine the sources of
pollutants, their relative significance and the assessment of the degree of
transmission of pollutants to boundary waters. Task D is devoted to
obtaining supplementary information on the impacts of materials to the
boundary waters, their effect on water quality and their significance in
these waters in the future and under alternative management schemes.
The Task C portion of the Detailed Study Plan includes intense
investigations of watersheds in Canada and the United States which are
representative of the full range of urban and rural land uses found in the
Great Lakes Basin. A Task C Technical Committee and a Synthesis and
Extrapolation Work Group were established by PLUARG and assigned primary
responsibility for developing and conducting the pilot watershed studies.
The Menomonee River watershed was selected for the study of the effects of
urban-residential land uses undergoing rapid change.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the University of
Wisconsin System through the Water Resources Center (UW-WRC) and the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) serve as the
lead agencies or organizations responsible for conducting the intensive
study of water quality/land use relations in the Menomonee River Watershed.
-------
The principal functions of these agencies are:
a. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: The WDNR is the lead
agency and as such, administers the total study including
coordination of activities associated with the Menomonee River
Study and submission of reports to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and PLUARG. WDNR also provided laboratory
support for the monitoring program conducted in the Menomonee River
basin.
b. University of Wisconsin System: The Water Resources Center (UW-
WRC) has conducted special studies of selected land use activities
and provided interpretation and assessment of monitoring data
through development of land use/water quality models.
c. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission: The SEWRPC
has provided background inventories on land use activities and
projected land use patterns from its current Menomonee River
planning program and developed a computer file of all data and
information applicable to the study.
The 35,200 ha Menomonee River Watershed is located in the southeastern
corner of Wisconsin and discharges to Lake Michigan at the City of
Milwaukee. This highly urbanized watershed encompasses all or parts of four
counties and 17 cities, villages and towns and currently contains a resident
population of about 400,000 persons (12 persons/ha). Existing urban land
uses range from an intensely developed commercial/industrial complex in the
lower quarter of the watershed to low to medium density residential areas in
the center half of the watershed, while the upper quarter is in the process
of being converted from rural to urban land use, as reflected by scattered
urban development. The irregular topography of the watershed results from
the effects of glaciation. Heterogeneous glacial drift covers the entire
watershed and the dominant soil types range from well to poorly drained.
o
The long-term average discharge from the Watershed is 2.2 m /sec but flood
o
flows as high as 500 m /sec have been recorded. The basin has a typical
humid climate, with mild summers and cold winters. The annual average
temperature is 10°C with mean daily temperatures ranging from -6°C in
January to 21°C in July. Annual average precipitation is 79 cm (100 cm of
snow).
Several key factors entered into selection of the Menomonee River
Watershed. Not only is the Watershed highly urbanized, but the Watershed
and contiguous lands contain a full range of urban uses including low- to
high-density residential areas, extensive commercial and industrial tracts
and a considerable amount of land devoted to transportation facilities. The
high degree of diversity of urban land uses in this Watershed is reflected
by the existence of combined and separate sewer systems. A dynamic
dimension is added by the rapid development occurring in the upper quarter
of the basin where agricultural land is being converted to urban land
uses. A unique facet of the Menomonee Watershed stems from the proposed
plan to remove all municipal point sources of pollution by 1983, at which
time the effects of land use on water quality will arise almost entirely
-------
from diffuse sources. Thus, of the major watersheds chosen for intensive
study in the PLUARG program, the Menomonee Watershed serves as the focus of
investigations on the impact of urban land uses on water quality.
Objectives
The overall objective of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study was
to investigate the effects of land drainage on the pollutional input to Lake
Michigan and to develop a predictive capacity with respect to the sources,
forms and amounts of pollutants reaching Lake Michigan.
The specific objectives of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study
were:
a. To determine the levels and quantities of major and trace
constituents including, but not limited to, nutrients, pesticides
and sediments reaching or moving in flow systems likely to affect
the quality of Lake Michigan water.
b. To define the sources and evaluate the behavior of pollutants from
an urban land use setting with particular emphasis on the impact of
residential and industrial areas including utility facilities,
transportational, recreational, agricultural and constructional
activities associated with rapid urbanization.
c. To develop the predictive capability necessary to facilitate
extension of the findings from the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study to other urban settings, leading to an eventual goal of
integrating pollutational inputs from urban sources to the entire
Great Lakes Basin.
Volume 1 contains summaries of the various major research efforts of
the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study and recommendations for remedial
measures based on the findings of the study.
Research Summary
This section consists of summaries of eight principal investigations
conducted under the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study. The summaries
are presented in logical order as follows:
• Characteristics of the Menoonee River Watershed - Volume 2
• Surface Water Quality - Volume 3
• Effects of Tributary Inputs of Lake Michigan During High FLows -
Volume 10
• Land Use/Water Quality Modeling - Volumes 4 and 5
• Dispersibility of Soils and Elemental Composition of Soils and
Sediments - Volume 6
• Availability of Pollutants Associated with River Sediments - Volume
11
• Groundwater Studies - Volume 7
• Atmospheric Studies - Volumes 8 and 9
-------
These summaries highlight the most significant findings; also they can
serve as an introduction and guide to the more complete and detailed
discussions of the research presented in subsequent volumes.
-------
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MENOMONEE RIVER PILOT WATERSHED
Land Data Management System
The Land Data Management System (Land EMS) was developed by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) in order to
provide an inventory of land use characteristics to be used in investigating
the impact of land uses on water quality. The Land DMS is a digital
computer-based system designed to store, retrieve, analyze and display land
data for the Menomonee River Watershed in tabular or graphic form.
The basic areal unit of the Land EMS is "The Cell" (see Fig. 1). The
cell is divided into several land data types; thereby providing access to
the data base by either the cell or land data information. Some typical
applications of its use are presented in Table 1.
Some of the more important advantages of the Land EMS are:
a. Handling data at the available level of detail; b. minimal manual
handling of data; c. ease of update and correction; d. quick response;
e. overlay capability; f. availability of a variety of tabular and graphic
outputs. The principal disadvantage of the system is the initial high cost
and cost of maintenance.
Remote Sensing
Since one of the important input parameters to the overland flow model
LANDRUN is land cover, remote sensing was investigated as a possible method
of obtaining land cover information. The most widely used remote sensing
technique is manual photo interpretation. The goal of this investigation
was to develop and test digital analysis of aerial photography for land
cover mapping in urban areas.
Calibrated digital imagery is classified using a two-stage elliptical
table-look-up algorithm which produces a tabular presentation of different
land cover classes as well as a thematic representation. Accuracy of
approximately 90% was determined for the digitally classified imagery when
compared to ground truth.
The digital analysis of aerial imagery seems to be superior to the
analysis of LANDSAT tapes in an urban area because of the better resolution
and versatility in choosing the date of imagery.
-------
Table 1. Typical applications of the land data management system developed under the IJC-Menotnone
River Pilot Watershed Study: May 1976 to February 1978
Application
Prepared for or used by
1. 1:4,800 scale computer maps showing boundaries of three
monitoring stations to be used for overlaying on aerial
photographs .
2. 1:48,000 scale and 1:24,000 scale map of aggregated
land uses in the Menomonee River Watershed.
3. Tabular summary of 1970 land use for all Menomonee
River watershed sub-basins; 1:24,000 scale computer map
of dominant 1970 land use per cell.
4. Tabular summary of each combination of slope and 1970
land use existing in sub-basins of the Watershed.
5. Tabular summary of percent impervious area by sub-basin.
6. Tabular summary of land use by section.
7. 1:24,000 scale computer map of dominant land use per
cell. Tabular summary of land use by sub-basin,
subwatershed and watershed and by area tributary to
12 monitoring stations.
8. Tabular summary of soil types with a greater than. 5%
distribution and slopes for each sub-basin.
9. 1:24,000 and 1:48,000 computer maps of dominant
soil types.
10. Tabular summary of 1975 land uses for the 51
subwatersheds designated for the study.
11. Computer soils maps based upon permeability and
depth to water table.
12. A tabular summary of 1975 land use data together
with soils, slope and erosion information for the
seven predominantly single land use sites monitored
in the Watershed.
13. 1:48,000 scale computer maps combining soils with
"C" horizon data and 1975 land use data.
14. 1:4,800 scale maps of soils, slopes, degree of
erosion and 1975 land use for each of the seven
predominantly single land use sites.
15. Tabular summary of soils, slope and 1975 land data
by monitoring stations.
16. 1:24,000 scale computer maps of soils, slope,
erosion data and 1975 generalized land use for each
monitoring station.
17. 1:126,720 scale computer map of the 51 subwatersheds
designated for the study.
18. Tabular summary of 1975 land use and degree of
imperviousness for each subwatershed.
19. Tabular summary of 1975 land use and degree of
Imperviousness for the sub-basins tributary to the
mainstem monitoring stations.
20. Use of cell system to assign density code to residential
lands to estimate imperviousness of an area.
21. Tabular summary of soils, slope, imperviousness and
1975 land use data for 51 subwatersheds designated for
the study.
22. 1:126,720 scale computer map of the 51 subwatersheds
designated for the study.
23. Tabular summary of soil and slope data for each
subwatershed.
24. Tabular summary of combination of land use, soils and
slope data for each subwatershed.
25. Tabular summary of land use, soils and slope data
for the sub-basins tributary to the mainstem monitoring
stations.
UVJ-Madison-Water Resources Center
UW-Madison-Geology Department
Marquette University
Marquette University
Marquette University
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
WDNR-Madison
WDNR-Milwaukee
UW-Madison-Geology Department
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
UW-Madison-Geology Department
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
UW-Madison-Geology Department
UW-Madison-Water Resource Center
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
WDNR-Madison
WDNR-Madison
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center
WDNR-Madison
WDNR-Madison
WDNR-Madison
WDNR-Madison
-------
GEOGRAPHIC UNIT OF
INTEREST SUCH AS A
WATERSHED, CIVIL
DIVISION, OR PLANNING
AREA.
SECTION:
NOMINAL AREA = I Mlz
QUARTER SECTION:
EIGHT EQUAL DIVISIONS
PER SIDE
-U.S. PUBLIC LAND
SURVEY SECTION
LINES
CELL:
NOMINAL AREA =
2.5 ACRES (1.0 HA.).
NOMINAL LENGTH OF
SIDE=330 FT. (100 M.)
Figure 1. "The Cell," the basic areal unit of the Land DMS.
-------
Description of the Watershed
The Menomonee River Watershed may be viewed as a large ecosystem
composed of natural resources, man-made features and human and animal
populations, all of which interact synergistically to alter the water
quality characteristics of the watershed. The Watershed is decribed in
order to establish a factual base upon which conclusions concerning the
interactions of the ecosystem and impact on water quality can be drawn.
The description includes natural and cultural features such as
population, land use, climate, physiography and geology, soil types and
water storage areas. Urban land uses range from an intensely developed
commercial/industrial complex in the lower quarter of the Watershed to low-
to medium-density residential areas in the center half of the Watershed
(Fig. 2). The upper quarter is in the process of conversion from rural to
urban land use. A summary of land use changes from 1970 to 1975 is
presented in Table 2. The description includes the characteristics and
management practices existing in the drainage areas of the main stem and
predominantly single land use monitoring sites.
Pollutant source identification is particularly important in a
heterogeneous basin like the Menomonee River Watershed—a basin that is
diverse with respect to natural features such as soil type, land slope and
vegetation, and cultural features such as land use and land management
practices. Watersheds that are spatially diverse with respect to natural
and man-made features are more likely to exhibit wide spatial variation with
respect to potential for pollution.
Important natural and cultural features of 48 subwatersheds (Fig. 3)
comprising the Menomonee River Watershed are described in more detail so
that variations in pollutant loadings through land surface drainage can be
evaluated. Land use distribution and degree of imperviousness are shown in
Table 3. Characteristics of soils and erosion potential in the
subwatersheds can be found in Volume 2. Variation in erosion potential is
associated closely with land use.
-------
Low density residential
(0.5 to r).4 dwe 1 I ing units
per net resident ial ha)
Medium density res i
-------
Table 2. Urban and rural land uses inventories for the Menomonee River Watershed in 1970 and 1975 as determined by the
S.E. Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Area**, ha % of Watershed
Land
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
use category
Industrial
Commercial*
Roads
High-density
residential
Medium-density
residential
Low-density
residential
Land under
development
Sub total - urban
Row crops
Pastures and
small grains*
Forested land
wood lots
Wetlands
Feedlots
Landfill and
dumps
Water areas
Sub total - rural
Total - watershed
Land use description
Urban
Manufacturing and extractive
Retail, wholesale, service,
communication, utilities,
transportation and off street
parking excluding roads
and expressways and local and
Multi-family and mobile homes
Single family and two family
dwellings
Single family dwellings on lots
> 2 ha and all farm buildings
except feed lots
All types of land
Rural
Row crops and vegetables
Grain crops, hay, pasture, park
and recreational land, governmental
and institutional and unused land
( Woodlands, orchards and nurseries
(
. Swamps, marshes and wetlands
( Feedlots
^ Landfills and dumps
c
( Lakes, rivers, streams and canals
1970
Land Uses
588
2,517
4 095
332
7,486
139
1,023
16,180
Land Uses
5,491
10,533
1,677
997
39
101
145
18,983
35,163
1975
612
2,864
3 673
428
8,430
230
921
17,158
4,806
9,705
1,969
1,069
32
120
185
17,886
35,044
1970
1.67
7.15
11. 65
0.94
21.29
0.40
2.91
46.01
15.62
29.95
4.77
2.84
0.11
0.29
0.41
53.99
100.00
1975
1.75
8.17
10.48
1.22
24.06
0.66
2.63
48.97
13.71
27.69
5.62
3.05
0.09
0.34
0.53
51.03
100.00
*In the Menomonee River Watershed most governmental and institutional buildings are associated with large open parklands and
are included in Category 9. In other watersheds, where these buildings are associated with a commercial district, they are
better included in Category 2.
**The 1975 data are more accurate because hectare-sized cells were summed; 1970 data were based on 0.65 km cells.
10
-------
Menomonee River
and tributaries
Figure 3. The 48 subwatersheds
11
-------
Table 3. Land use categories (1975) In the 48 subwatersheds of the Menomonee River Watershed
No.
12A
12B
12C
12D
12E
10A
108
IOC
100
10E
7A
7B
7C
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
11A
11B
11C
9
8A
SB
ac
6A
6B
6C
6D
6E
6F
4A
4B
4C
4D
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
3F
30
3H
5
2
1A
IB
19
Total
*Land
Area, ha
429
1,200
571
981
1,592
599
459
502
1,610
853
981
820
718
1,406
301
832
1 343
*251
527
852
765
555
599
853
1,011
970
1,323
744
669
974
294
545
752
707
799
527
940
225
605
230
496
151
642
175
182
1,143
389
305
34,397
use categoric
1
0.4
4.3
0.6
0
0
0.2
1.1
0.1
1.8
0
3.1
5. 9
0
1.1
2.7
1.1
0.2
0
0
0
3.4
0.1
1.3
2.2
2.0
4.5
0.5
5.1
0
0.3
4.0
2.5
0.1
0
0.2
1.3
0
15
7.9
3.0
0.2
8.1
0
0
17
8.3
5.0
2.6
B are:
2
3.3
3.2
1.8
2.4
0.7
4.0
4.6
3.1
1.1
0.2
5.7
3.1
3.2
8.2
6.6
8.3
1.2
0.2
1.3
15
2.0
7.8
9.8
8.9
15
6.9
1.0
8.3
4.3
11
9.1
5.5
6.4
5.8
4.5
20
24
34
17
85
15
5.6
7.2
25
18
12
7.3
1-lndi
3
0
1.9
0
0
0
0
5.9
2.7
2.2
0.8
8.0
0
0
3.5
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
7.7
0
0
4.1
5.7
0
0
0
0
7.0
0.4
0
2.7
0
0.2
4.7
2.1
7.9
1.9
0
1.2
0
0
3.8
5.9
0
1.8
strial, 2-
4
6.7
0.3
0
0
0
2.0
1.8
0
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.1
0
0
4.5
0
0.2
0
6.8
2.9
2.9
1.9
2.9
2.6
1.8
1.3
0
0
5.4
2.3
11
5.1
4.1
5.0
8.4
0.5
3.7
9.1
4.4
4.4
0.4
3.3
2.3
5.5
2.5
1.9
commercial
5
8.7
6.2
9.6
3.5
4.3
37
36
9.6
12
14
18
48
56
28
24
65
2.4
7.6
12
41
36
13
4.3
47
41
58
53
45
25
47
69
67
49
42
69
23
26
11
32
8.6
32
87
77
33
40
65
29
, 3-freev
Land i
6
0.7
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.4
0.2
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.9
0
2.5
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.4
0.9
1.0
0
0
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0.7
ray (other
ae* distribution, X
7
7.8
3.6
1.4
0.3
0.4
4.4
1.9
1.8
5.9
1.7
5.0
6.7
6.5
3.0
4.9
4.6
0.2
2.7
2.1
3.9
4.5
5.8
6.2
1.0
2.8
4.7
4.9
5.8
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.5
5.2
0.1
0.3
0.8
1.4
0.4
2.4
0
1.8
2.0
0.2
0
0.2
1.1
3.1
roads
8
17
36
31
45
31
1
15
31
19
37
8
9
5
5
21
28
0
68
33
39
0
2
14
26
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
are
9
48
29
38
32
30
3 25
25
32
38
26
9 40
0 28
1 19
5 41
37
32
1 16
18
38
31
2 24
6 40
45
28
30
26
20
24
0 26
50
26
16
13
9 25
5 43
19
39
30
33
6 33
1.
37
5.
13
18
18
13
29
proportio
10
2.6
6.0
9.4
12
24
1.3
4.5
13
13
8.5
7.0
2 .8
2.6
3.6
5.9
3.9
8.9
0.4
6.2
10
12
0.4
3.1
5.5
13
0.4
0.8
6.3
4.4
7.4
10
0
0
0
1.7
2.1
0
2.5
1.1
0.3
0
5 0
0
3 0
0
0
0
0
5.7
nately distrib
11
0.4
7.0
4.8
3.2
8.6
24
0.3
5.3
4.4
11
2.2
0. 8
0.7
5.0
0
0.4
4.1
1.3
1.5
4.0
0.8
0.1
0.6
2.9
6.9
0
1.0
1.0
6.3
4.5
10
0
0
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
uted amon
12
0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.1
0
0.8
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
g the
13 14
0 4.0
0 0.2
0 0.4
0 0
0 0
0.2 0.6
0 1.0
0 0
0 0.5
0 0.1
0 1.7
2.6 0.6
0 0
0 0.3
0 0.8
0 0.2
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.2
0 1.5
0 0
2.6 0.4
0 0.5
1.6 0
0 0.4
3.8 0.1
0.3 0.6
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0.2
0 0
0 0
0 0.3
0 0.1
1.6 0.1
0 1.7
0 0.7
0 1.8
0.1 0.6
0.6 1.3
0 0.6
0 0
0 0.7
0 0
0 0
0 0.8
3.2 0.8
0.4 0.8
0.3 0.4
other land uses).
Imperviousness , %
Total
17
7
8
2
2
23
28
7
8
6
23
11
17
18
24
12
11
34
5
5
3
42
26
13
12
41
39
23
14
21
10
51
48
52
32
46
51
47
51
46
46
21
47
55
56
70
59
56
24
4-high den
Connected
6
1
1
1
1
12
2
1
2
2
1
17
1
2
1
27
10
8
1
17
12
1
1
1
1
33
30
32
20
32
30
33
18
36
30
11
30
33
34
50
41
36
11
sity
residential, 5-medium density residential, 6-low density residential, 7-land under development, 8-row crops, 9-pasture and small grains, 10-forested land
and woodlots, 11-wetlands, 12-feedlots, 13-landflll and dumps, 14-water areas (land use categories are described In Table 2.
12
-------
3. SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Surface water quality and quantity were monitored at 18 stations in the
Menomonee River Watershed from 1975 through 1977 during baseflow and runoff
events (Fig. 4). Nine of these stations were located either on the main
channel of the river or on its principal tributaries. The subwatersheds
monitored by these stations were relatively large (180 to 34,400 ha) and
encompassed a wide variety of land uses (Table 4). These stations are
referred to as the main stem or mixed land use stations. The other nine
stations were located on the headwaters of small streams or storm sewer
systems draining to the Menomonee River. The subwatersheds monitored by
these stations were relatively small (49 to 2,150 ha) were referred to as
the predominantly single land use stations (Table 5). All stations were
instrumented with automated flow and sampling equipment. At the main stem
stations the U.S. Geological Survey monitored flow and the WDNR monitored
water quality. At the predominantly single land use stations the UW-WRC
monitored flow and water quality. The Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
analyzed water quality samples. Seasonal and annual pollutant loading
values were calculated using a stratified random sampling technique.
Significance of Nonpoint Pollution in the Menomonee River Watershed
For the Menomonee River, the annual nonpoint contributions of water,
suspended solids and total phosphorus were greater than the annual base flow
and point source contributions (Table 6). Large percentages of the annual
pollutant loads may be delivered in one or two large storm events, such as
in 1977 when a single event delivered 37% of the total annual suspended
solids and total phsophorus loads.
Pollutant concentrations during some events exceeded acceptable water
quality standards for domestic water supply and/or aquatic life (Table 7).
High lead concentrations impair domestic water supplies and suspended solids
and zinc threaten aquatic life. Eutrophication is promoted by high
concentrations of total phosphorus while swimming is impaired by high fecal
coliform counts.
Variations in Nonpoint Pollution Due to Land Use Activities
On a unit area basis, the urban areas generated much greater nonpoint
pollution loads than the rural areas. A high correlation existed between
the degree to which a watershed was urbanized and the amount of runoff and
pollutant generated. Among the most notable of these pollutants are
suspended solids, total phosphorus and lead (Table 8-13). A useful
indicator of the potential pollutant load from a watershed is the amount of
connected impervious area. This includes all impervious areas connected to
13
-------
463001
673001
Mixed land use stations
Predominantly single
land use stations
413Q05
,413010
413009
413615
413004
'+*- / i 413014
MIC/AUKEE 413013
Km
Figure 4. Locations of monitoring stations within the
Menomonee River Watershed.
14
-------
Table 4. Land use categories (1975) in areas tributary to the main stem monitoring stations
t_n
STORE!
number
673001
683002***
683001+
413008
413007
413006
413005"""
413009
413004+++
Land use* distribution, ha
1
57
(1.2)**
92
(1.0)
239
(1.6)
52
(1.0)
118
(2.4)
41
(1.5)
638
(2.0)
0
882
(2.6)
2
97
(2.0)
178
(0.2)
517
(3.3)
277
(5.4)
437
(8.8)
220
(7.8)
2,104
(6.5)
13
(7.2)
2,519
(7.3)
3
23
(0.5)
105
(1.2)
248
(1.6)
55
(1.1)
116
(2.3)
62
(2.2)
542
(1.7)
0
609
(1.8)
4
32
(0.7)
54
(0.6)
74
(0.5)
101
(2.0)
84
(1.7)
166
(5.9)
604
(1.9)
6
(3.3)
667
(1.9)
5
269
(5.6)
1,016
(12)
2,938
(19)
765
(15)
2,288
(46)
1,642
(59)
9,110
(28)
139
(77)
10,130
(29)
6
71
(1-5)
123
(1-4)
181
(1.2)
58
(1.1)
8
(0.2)
0
247
(0.8)
0
248
(0.7)
7
94
(2.0)
249
(2.8)
599
(3.9)
201
(3.9)
171
(3.4)
64
(2.3)
1,073
(3.3)
0
1,081
(3.1)
8
1,621
(34)
2,484
(28)
3,422
(22)
1,329
(26)
29
(0.6)
15
(0.5)
4,806
(15)
0
4,806
(14)
9
1,566
(33)
2,835
(32)
5,020
(32)
1,701
(33)
1,340
(27)
554
(20)
9,762
(30)
23
(13)
10,108
(29)
10
626
(13)
994
(11)
1,325
(8.6)
413
(8)
193
(3.9)
14
(0.5)
1,969
(6.1)
0
1,969
(5.7)
11
281
(5.9)
611
(6.9)
775
(5.0)
148
(2.9)
138
(2.8)
9
(0.3)
1,069
(3.3)
0
1,069
(3.1)
12
14
(0.3)
17
(0.2)
20
(0.1)
13
(0.2)
0
0
32
(0.1)
0
32
(0.1)
13
0
1
(0.0)
23
(0.1)
28
(0.5)
40
(0.8)
13
(0.5)
106
(0.3)
0
120
(0.3)
Imperviousness, %
14 Total Total Connected
22 4,774 5
(0.5)
38 8,797 8
(0.4)
69 15,450 12
(0.4)
23 5,163 14
(0.4)
12 4,974 28
(0.2)
4 2,803 45
(0.1)
142 32,205 22
(0.4)
0 182 56
157 34,397 24
(0.4)
1
2
3
6
7
28
9
34
11
*Land use categories are: 1-industrial, 2 commercial, 3-freeway (other roads are proportionately distributed among the other land uses),
4-high density residential, 5-medium density residential, 6-low density residential, 7-land under development, 8-row crops, 9-pasture
and small grains, 10-forested land and woodlots, 11-wetlands, 12-feedlots, 13-landfill and dumps, 14-water areas (land use categories
are described in Table 2.
**( ) percent distribution.
***Xo obtain area adjacent to station subtract values for 673001 from values for 683002.
+To obtain area adjacent to station subtract values for 683002 from values for 683001.
-H-To obtain area adjacent to station subtract values for 683001, 413007, 413006 and 413008 from values for 413005.
+++To obtain area adjacent to station subtract values for 413005 from values for 413004.
tTotal imperviousness of area adjacent to stations 683002, 683001, 413005 and 413004 are 12, 16, 47 and 65%, respectively.
ttConnected imperviousness of area adjacent to stations 683002, 683001, 413005 and 413004 are 3, 3, 27 and 46%, respectively.
-------
Table 5. Characteristics of the drainage area of the predominantly single land use monitoring stations*
STORET
number
463001
413010
413011
413625
,_, 683090
ON
413614
413615
683089
413034
413616
Location
Donges Bay Road,
Mequon
Schoonmaker Creek
at Vliet St.
Noyes Creek at
91st St.
City of New Berlin
at 124th St. and
Greenfield Ave.
Village of Elm Grove,
ditch at Underwood
Pkwy.
Timmerman Airport,
manhole #6
Stadium interchange,
1-94, manhole #120
Brookfield Square
Shopping Center
City of Wauwatosa,
off Ferrick St.
Allis Chalmers Corp.,
City of West Allis
Land use** distribution, % Imperviousness , %
Area, ha 1 2 34 5 678 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total Connected
2,144 0 0.75 1.86 0.05 6.95 1.54 1.59 43.8 30.2 9.79 2.28 0.56 0 0.65 4.0 1.0
179 0 4.47 22.3 0.56 65.9 0 1.68 0 5.03 00000 53.5 32.7
552 1.81 15.0 19.7 3.80 30.2 0.18 2.72 0.18 22.8 0.36 0.07 0 2.72 0.36 34.9 28.0
224 0 2.68 11.2 0.89 0 56.7 2.68 0 25.0 0.89 0000 22.5 0.30
166 0 1.81 10.2 0 0 78.9 3.61 0 3.01 2.41 0000 24.3 0
140 0 95.7 3.57 0 0 0.71 00 000000 18.0 6.6
64 0 14.1 40.6 0 17.2 0 0.16 0 28.1 00000 44.6 43.2
61 0 60.7 4.92 0 8.20 000 26.2 00000 50.4 44.9
110 22.7 49.1 8.18 0 7.27 000 12.7 00000 73.8 32.1
49 77.6 20.4 1.43 0 0 000 000000 89.8 89.8
*A11 stations have automatic sampling and continuous flow monitoring instruments.
**Land use categories in 1975 are: 1-industrial, 2-commercial, 3-roads, 4-high density residential, 5-medium density residential, 6-low
density residential, 7-land under development, 8-row crops, 9-pasture and small grains (include park, recreational, institutional and
unused land), 10-forested land and wood lots, 11-wetlands, 12-feedlots, 13-landfill and dumps, 14-water areas.
-------
Table 6. Loadings and relative contributions from nonpoint and point
sources of pollution for suspended sediment and total P at 70th
St. (413005)
Category
1975
1976
Nonpoint
Point
Nonpoint
Point
Loadings
47,981,000 4,674,000 45,727,000 4,106,000
o
Water, m /yr
Total suspended
solids, kg/yr
Total P, kg/yr
Water
Total suspended
solids
Total P
9,274,200 90,500
Relative contribution, %
59
73
62
0.7
38
8,726,700
17,400
56
91
65
78,000
7,400
0.8
28
17
-------
Table 7. Comparison of mean concentration of selected parameters during events in 1976 and 1977 with water quality criteria at the predominantly
single land use monitoring sites
oo
Water quality criteria*, mg/L
Parameter
Suspended solids
Total P
NH3-N
N02+N03-N
Chloride
Cd
Cu
Pb
Zn
Cr
As
Fecal coliform
Domestic
water supply
0.5
10
250
0.01
1.0
0.05
5.0
0.05
0.05
200**
Aquatic life 413010
80 261
0.05+ 0.48
(99)T
1.6 0.19
(0)
0.79
(0)
158
(16)
0.012 0.011
(5.1)
0.047"^ 0.17
(2.6)
4.8?."H" 0.37
(97)
O.W^ 0.26
(0)
0.10 0.032
(14)
0.005
(0)
265
413011
154
0.21
(96)
0.19
(0)
0.78
(0)
141
(15)
0.001
(0.6)
0.05
(0)
0.09
(60)
0.11
(0)
0.012
(1.9)
0.005
(0)
156
Mean concentration (mg/L) at station:
413034
217
0.43
(100)
0.21
(0)
1.20
(0)
41
(2.1)
0.005
(13)
0.10
(1.4)
0.52
(100)
0.32
(0)
0.023
(13)
0.003
(0)
tt
413614
164
0.34
(95)
0.29
(0)
0.01
(0)
112
(14)
0.006
(13)
0.04
(0)
0.27
(72)
0.41
(0)
0.015
(4.4)
0.008
(1.9)
tt
413615
341
0.42
(100)
0.45
(0)
1.59
(0)
278
(24)
0.007
(19)
0.16
(0)
1.66
(100)
0.74
(0)
0.034
(19)
0.006
(0)
tt
413616
293
1.02
(100)
0.08
(0)
0.54
(0)
47
(0)
0.019
(61)
0.23
(1-9)
1.34
(97)
2.40
(13)
0.083
(46)
0.012
(1.3)
tt
413625
227
0.33
(100)
0.13
(0)
0.58
(0)
61
(0)
0.005
(14)
0.04
(0)
0.19
(88)
0.21
(0)
0.012
(2.0)
0.004
(0)
tt
463001
257
0.46
(98)
0.32
(0)
3.81
(0.9)
37
(0)
0.002
(3.1)
0.05
(0)
0.06
(58)
0.11
(0)
0.017
(9.4)
0.005
(0)
30
689089
205
0.26
(93)
0.25
(0)
1.01
(0)
57
(8.6)
0.006
(10)
0.05
(0.7)
0.44
(90)
0.24
(0)
0.033
(9.8)
0.007
(1.3)
tt
683090
27
0.36
(100)
0.12
(0)
0.70
(0)
63
(0)
0.004
(12)
0.03
(0)
0.06
(60)
0.13
(0)
0.004
(0)
0.004
(0)
tt
*Values are U.S. water quality criteria (U.S. EPA. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., 1971.
National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. Ecological Research Series, EPA-R3-73-0033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1973.) unless otherwise specified.
**Coliform limit for bathing waters expressed as MFFCC/100 ml. MFFCC is membrane filtered fecal coliform counts.
+Values for total P represent concentrations that would limit the growth of noxious plants in streams and lakes (National Academy of Sciences,
1973).
-H-Criteria for fathead minnows under hard water conditions.
tPercent of samples with concentrations exceeding the domestic water supply and aquatic life (total P only) criteria.
ttNo sample analyzed for bacteria.
-------
Table 8. Seasonal and annual event unit area loadings* of suspended solids and flow-weighted average concentration** at mainstem river station
Spring
STORET
number
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
Loading,
kg/ha
36.7 (4.5) +
43.2 (7.5)
56.1(21.4)
238 (61.7)
286 (74.6)
288 (72.1)
127 (29.6)
i.d.
i.d.
12.7 (3.9)
36.6(11.4)
136 (36.8)
467 (131)
133 (42.7)
835 (149)
230 (25.7)
130 (35.4)
266 (65.8)
1.6 (0.6)
7.5 (4.6)
44.5 (15.2)
95.1 (26.2)
26.2 (11.2)
129 (29.7)
40.6 (8.2)
34.4 (6.6)
36.4 (28.5)
Concentration,
mg/L
94
68
68
243
1208
511
129
i.d.
i.d.
47
43
94
259
154
524
174
226
206
32
115
208
826
321
352
292
189
303
Summer
Fall
Loading, Concentration, Loading, Concentration,
kg/ha mg/L kg/ha mg/L
3.6
44.1
71.5
2.2
178
147
147
i.d.
i.d.
0.2
1.6
6.0
58.1
37.9
76.7
36.0
30.3
10.0
13.
39.
80.
180
84
452
168
87.
97.
(0.8)
(19.2)
(12.8)
(50.3)
(55.7)
(24.4)
(18.0)
(0.1)
(1.0)
(2.7)
(47.6)
(27.2)
(15.1)
(10.5)
(7.8)
(9.0)
5 (9.0)
1 (9.9)
6(17.2)
(35.2)
(37.8)
(62.7)
(28.7)
6(49.8)
0(26.9)
43
201
210
605
638
498
364
i.d.
i.d.
27
109
192
4407
624
275
480
203
135
75
256
377
658
398
557
593
264
336
1975
2.0
6.8
4.3
(5.7)
(1.7)
(1.2)
46.4(22.5)
2.8
(9.1)
45.9(14.7)
14.3
i.d.
13.3
1976
0.06
0.1
0.4
1.4
7.4
10.0
4.2
i.d.
i.d.
1977
i.d.
i.d.
45.6
i.d.
36
47.2
47.6
i.d.
i.d.
(4.1)
(9.3)
(0.02)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.5)
(6.1)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(32.8)
(63.3)
(95.3)
(58.4)
20
52
33
250
35
215
137
i.d.
115
29
37
58
106
317
112
160
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
380
i.d.
400
240
480
i.d.
i.d.
Annual
Loading, Concentration,
kg/ha mg/L
42.
94.
131
497
466
480
288
i.d.
i.d.
13.
38.
143
527
178
922
271
160
276
17
58
171
344
146
628
257
152
167
3 (6.1)
1(20.8)
(24.7)
(81.0)
(92.8)
(77.3)
(35.0)
0 (3.8)
3(11.5)
(36.9)
(136)
(49.5)
(150)
(27.7)
(36.3)
(66.4)
(9)++
(ll)"1"1"
(31.9)
(43)++
(56.3)
(78.3)
(51.2)
(50)++
(37)++
74
95
85
328
782
448
189
i.d.
i.d.
46
45
96
288
187
470
191
204
202
50
190
330
620
380
460
490
210
280
*Base flow loading during events subtracted from total event loading.
**Average concentration is the suspended solids loading divided by the water loading.
+95% confidence interval
+*Loading values are estimated by adding 20% and 30% to Spring and Summer loadings, respectively.
i.d. Data insufficient for determination of loading.
-------
00
•H
O
4_)
•H
C
s
cu
CO
3
•o
e
(U
oo
B
•H
CO
£*N
1— t
4J
C!
19
•H
o
13
0)
U
O.
CU
•U
IS
CO
•a
•H
i— i
o
CO
"8
•a
g
a.
10
3
CO
O
H
CB
ri
(U
C
•r-t
CD
0
B
til
T3
*iH
B
0
o
B~S
ON
•U
._!
CO
00
c
•H
^
18
0
rH
[
18
B
o en
CO dl
18 J-l
CU -H
CO CO
ON
.
g)
S:C
o^s.
rt ^1
o -^
J
H L
U 0)
OS xi
0 S
E-i 3
W C
VO OO ON •- t— »- vO
o on on CM CM oo t^
ON. in m vo ON oo a-
«- oo 00 CM ^ in
vo r- OO i—' OO vO
CM c\i T- a- CM on
vO
CM
O
VO
*o oo
on CM
--O CMCM
in *o in c— CM c-
oj <— vo in t— in
=)• =r CM IT. a- CM
oo a*a CMVOVD onono •- 1— oa- «- i
oovo oooMnincM^> CM o t— CM oncy>vooo moo rn^o
inoovo^r ^— inovr o «- CM CM o o t— oo ovo>o t-
^O(3^Ot—^T
o t—in<-
•JD
a-
m
o-.
m
mon
oo«-
CM«-
on=r
CMC-O
CO
oo
coin
inc\i •
o ONCMTJ o
t— inovMtnonooc— a- CM
on
^•
m
t--
oo
o
o
ON on
ONO
o yaooo o
ON ON ON VO
in ON in =t
»— o ON oo
i- O
ON O
CM O
in .a-
a- o
*— on
in =r
on co
in
vo
oo ONST oo on=r CM ONOO in c-- cvw r-
incovo t—CM ONVO invo CMOO on=r on
CM ^- T- T- ooo CM onoo CM T- CM o o o
o on=ro
a- oo
on CM
CM in
1— T—
CM
o
o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o
«- »- t- CM CO f-
oo ON in o vo in
O O vo OO O vO
c-- vo ON on in oo
a- ON CM o on oo
«- on t— t-
*— t— CNJVOCO ON
-
oNOCMvooninmocxjvooin
~* --
ON CM on oo
«~ on co on
=»• =t oo o
ON
o
in
CM
o
vo CM oo vo in on *—
vo CO •— *— f— vo <—
CM CM CM in =f CM
on
on
on
in
on
CM CM »-vo on^- .
ONint— in^a-
--CM on
vo oo
ON o
=r <- oo c~- co oo CM
rj- *— ON co ON on co
ON =f in a- CM «- >—
in vo o o ON ON
CTN on in oo o ON
=t =r <- vo a- *-
CM OO
in CM
on<—moo OvOONvocOO CMOO C^ON CM in
voinvoc-—=3~ i^-vocMinoocM=ront— oni—
»— CM-=J-vocMont—CO-=rONOnvOCM«— O
CMONOt--coonoc\ioncMa-ON >_-o
oc^«——^-inincMoo»— vo—•
n«— «— vo o^co o ON»— m»— c— «—
=ra- inina- moo onoo CM ONOCO «-a- 1— t— vo ON CM
oo CMOOCO in«— vo CMCOVO o in ONVO CM t— ovo ONC—
CMONCTNC— OOOOt—
CM a-
vO vO
on vo
on on
a- CM
-H CMCMC\I=T.H
-
VO
ON
t--
in
I-VO
. onon
T3 OOON
on
»—
«-
ON
in
on
on
>-
ON
r-
in
in
in
VO
r-
T—
in
a-
ON
on
^3-
f —
in
o
00
on
in
o
CM
r~
t^
if
vO
VO
VO
,—
r-
ON
CM
00
[^
vo
in
ON
on
a-
CM
ina-CMOO CM ONVO «-in CM ONCM vo ^vo t-ono
(\jvoa~vOvO C*-a* t—^~ C—C—a'OCO-a't—a* CM •
ON in O invO-=?• CM ON O a" «—O ON CM in ON ON CM XJ
oooinoNoooNoooNt— oovjin*~vo«— ^-'•H
coonont—a-a-a-'— voco «-«-«-•" —•
•—CM—^onon —^— CM —' —
vo in ON «-
o a- in o r-
«- i— CM C7N O
O vo vo O O
on on on m on
T- «- >— OO vO
a- a- a- vo =t
vOvO
onon
OOO
ononon
on«— CMONO
OvovOOO
ononononon
'~'~r* CO vo
c
O
§
•H
i,
0)
*J
cu
•o
T3
C8
O
ID m s-
C O
•H.rH
*J*J
-------
Table 10. Seasonal and annual event unit area loadings* of total P and flow-weighted average concentrations** at main stem river stations
Spring
STORET
number
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
Loading, Concentration,
kg/ha mg/L
0.072 (0.012) +
0.066 (0.043)
0.504 (0.112)
0.457 (0.147)
0.307 (0.155)
0.641 (0.482)
0.459 (0.062)
i.d.
0.236 (0.068)
0.004 (0.004)
0.016 (0.007)
0.085 (0.024)
0.068 (0.022)
0.040 (0.025)
0.282 (0.167)
0.055 (0.013)
0.235 (0.047)
0.050 (0.029)
0.27
0.08
0.34
0.25
0.35
0.40
0.35
i.d.
0.18
0.08
0.10
0.40
0.59
0.49
0.76
0.40
1.30
0.42
Summer
Fall
Annual
Loading, Concentration, Loading, Concentration,
kg/ha mg/L kg/ha mg/L
0.004
0.004
0.030
0.001
0.006
0.119
0.065
0.161
0.018
0.105
0.061
0.160
0.134
0.110
0.485
0.211
0.538
0.186
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.022)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.119)
(0.014)
(0.078)
(0.000)
(0.043)
(0.011)
(0.028)
(0.042)
(0.054)
(0.112)
(0.042)
(0.449)
(0.079)
0.55
0.27
1.00
0.08
0.10
0.42
0.93
0.28
0.26
0.58
0.40
0.85
0.50
0.52
0.60
0.75
1.63
0.64
1976
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.048
0.017
i.d.
i.d.
1977
i.d.
i.d.
0.073
i.d.
0.031
0.095
0.038
i.d.
i.d.
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.009)
(0.005)
(0.60)
(0.180)
(0.180)
(0.068)
0.95
0.00
0.43
0.08
0.17
0.53
0.57
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
.61
i.d.
.34
.47
.38
i.d.
i.d.
Loading, Concentration,
kg/ha mg/L
0.077
0.070
0.538
0.459
0.317
0.883
0.541
i.d.
0.271
0.136
0.096
0.318
0.252
0.181
0.862
0.304
0.966
0.295
(0.013)
(0.043)
(0.114)
(0.147)
(0.155)
(0.484)
(0.064)
(0.063)
(0.43)++
(0.059)
(0.046)"^
(0.079)
(0.21)
(0.0541
(0.083)^
0.28
0.08
0.36
0.25
0.34
0.45
0.38
i.d.
0.20
0.47
0.37
0.61
0.52
0.48
0.63
0.58
0.58
*Base flow loading during events subtracted from total event loading.
**Average concentration is total P loading divided by water loading
+95% confidence interval.
-^Loading values are estimated by adding 20% to the Spring and Summer loadings.
i.d. Data insufficient for determination of loading.
-------
Table 11.
Seasonal loadings (with 95% confidence interval) of total phosphorus at the predominantly single land use monitoring
sites
N3
STORET
number
413616
413615
683089
413011
413010
413614
413625
683090
463001
413616
413615
683089
413011
413010
413034
413614
413625
683090
463001
Sprine
Loading,
kg/ ha
i.d.
1.287
(.446)
.276
(.076)
i.d.
i.d.
.633
(.170)
.454
(.085)
.239
(.070)
.263^
(.217)
.075
(.017)
.243
(.376)
.016
(.012)
.030
(.018)
.039
(.042)
.008
(.001)
i.d.
Lone . ,
mg/L
.396
.455
.363
.892
.538
.384
.219
1.061
.742
.207
.407
.213
Summer
Loading,
kg/ ha
1.041
(.205)
.022
(.009)
.095
(.051)
.069
(.017)
.122
(.168)
.099
(.025)
.001
(.000)
0.0
.014
(.014)
3.712
(.863)
.629
(.169)
.216
(.159)
.614
(.362)
(!o87)
.042
(.012)
.084
(.027)
.012
(.002)
,017x
(.001)
.174
(.099)
Cone . ,
mg/L
1.371
.173
.267
.294
.841
.713
.481
.583
1.131
.395
.174
.536
.544
.175
.185
.386
.437
1.318
Fall
Loading, Cone.,
kg/ha mg/L
1976
.032
(.013)
.013
(.063)
.024
(.031)
.015
(.008)
.017
(.022)
.008
(.002)
.001
(.001)
0.0
0.0
1977
.129
(.087)
.060
(.039)
.007
(.003)
i.d.
.022
(-105)
.072
(.011)
.051
(.027)
.002
( .000)
.009
(.008)
.025
(.010)
1.079
.935
.267
.165
.370
.467
.295
.561
.254
.067
.355
1.058
.210
.217
.295
• 373
Winter
Loading, Cone.,
kg/ha mg/L
0.0
.076 .827
(.012)
0.0
0.0
0.0
.007 .288
(.000)
i.d.
0.0
0.0
0.0
.012 .120
(.016)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
Loading,
kg/ha
1.072
(.205)
.111
(.020)
.419
(.057)
1.370
(.447)
.415
(.183)
.115
(.025)
.001
(.000)
0.0
.647
(.170)
4.295
( 8661
\ • WUU 1
.946
i486
(.264)
.689
(.362)
.617
( 378)
\ • J I *•* /
.130
( .018)
.165
(.034)
.054
(.042)
.034
( .007)
.200
(,099)
Cone . ,
mg/L
1.360
.477
.266
• 383
.520
.631
.349
.366
1.068
.399
.239
.463
.658
.394
.196
.389
.316
1.005
+ ( ) 95$ Confidence interval
•*•+ Station not operational
i.d. Data insufficient for loading determination
-------
Table 12. Seasonal event unit area loadings* of lead and flow-weighted average concentrations** at
main stem river stations
STORE!
number
Spring
Loading,
kg/ha
Concentration,
mg/L
Summer
Loading, Concentration,
kg/ha mg/L
Total
Loading,
kg/ha
Concentration,
mg/L
OJ
413005
0.420
0.410(0.262)
*Base flow loadings during events subtracted from total event loading.
**Average concentration is the lead loading divided by the water loading.
+95% confidence interval.
Blank means no data.
0.275
413006 0.289(0. 484 )+ 0.182
413005 0.125(0.213) 0.095
673001
683002
683001
413007
413006
413005
0.101(0.659)
1977
0.001(0.002)
0.003(0.001)
0.007(0.002)
0.075(0.135)
0.378(0.314)
0.063(0.045)
0.361
0.022
0.020
0..037
0.357
0.467
0.225
0.416(1.288)
0.132(0.228)
0.008(0.002)
0.007(0.001)
0.022(0.009)
0.124(0.262)
0.524(0.504)
0.114(0.093)
0.212
0.093
0.024
0.023
0.042
0.326
0.380
0.219
-------
Table 13. Seasonal loadings (with 95% confidence interval) of lead at the predominantly single land use monitoring sites
STORET
number
413616
413615
683089
413011
413010
413614
413625
683090
463001
413616
413615
683089
413011
413010
413034
413614
413625
683090
463001
Spring
Loading,
kg/ ha
++
++
i.d.
.180
(.111)
.061
(.017)
i.d.
++
i.d.
.007
(.005)
.307^
(.122)
1.095
(.345)
.714
(.581)
.025
(.007)
.507
(.536)
.021
(.054)
.025
(.014)
.007
(.008)
.001
(.000)
i.d.
uonc. ,
mg/L
.055
.100
.004
.604
2.471
1 .044
.073
2.214
.975
.179
.074
.030
Summer
Loading,
kg/ ha
1.440
(.986)
.038
(.021)
.189
(.151)
i.d.
.077
(.365)
.081
(.026)
.000
(.000)
0.0
.000
(.000)
6.664
(2.910)
3.659
(2.009)
.443
(.161)
.191
.075
.285
(.087)
.072
(.019)
.086
(.050)
.006
(.002)
.003
(.000)
.008
(.007)
Cone . ,
mg/L
1.897
.300
.528
-531
.584
.200
.000
2.030
2.296
.356
.167
.440
.298
.189
.192
.072
.061
Fall
Loading, Cone.,
kg/ha mg/L
1976
.023
(.019)
.026
(.039)
.041
(.054)
i.d.
i.d.
.004
(.001)
.000
(.000)
0.0
0.0
1977
.041
(.006)
• 337
(.240)
.010
(.006)
i.d.
.014
(.048)
.109
(.040)
.038
(.008)
.001
( .000)
.002
(.000)
.004
(.001)
.780
1.935
.456
.209
.056
.178
1.421
.101
.226
1.604
.157
.086
.060
.060
Winter
Loading, Cone. ,
kg/ha mg/L
0.0
.256 2.775
(.088)
0.0
0.0
0.0
.004 .161
(.001)
.010 1.464
(.003)
0.0
0.0
0.0
.078 .783
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
Loading,
kg/ha
1.462
(.986)
.320
(.0.91)
.230
( .160)
.180
( 111)
\tll\J
.138
( .371)
\ * J I ' /
.089
( .026)
.010
(.003)
0.0
.007
(.005)
7.013
(2.912)
5.169
(2.060)
1.167
( .600)
.216
( .076)
.805
(.550)
.202
(.041)
.150
( .051 )
.014
(.008)
.006
(.000)
.012
(.007)
Cone . ,
mg/L
1 .855
1.376
.514
.05
.184
.489
.957
.004
1.744
2.178
.574
.145
.858
.611
.178
.102
.053
.060
+ ( ) 95? Confidence interval
++ Station not operational
i.d. Data insufficient for loading determination
-------
the basin outfalls by an impermeable storm sewer drainage network. An urban
area drained by a conventional curb and gutter storm sewer system generates
much larger stormwater flows and pollutant loads than would a similar area
drained by adequately maintained natural drainage swales. Natural drainage
allows infiltration and reduces the total amount of runoff. Further,
vegetated drainage swales appear to effectively filter particulate
pollutants. Because total phosphorus and lead are closely associated with
suspended solids, control of suspended solids will effectively reduce
phosphorus and lead loadings.
The degree of correlation between the relative amount of runoff and the
amount of connected impervious area increases as the size of the connected
impervious area increases. In highly impervious areas the relative effects
of infiltration, evapotranspiration and depression storage are minimized.
Thus, the amount of runoff—as a percent of rainfall—is relatively high and
consistent, regardless of the magnitude of the rainfall. In more pervious
areas, the percent runoff is considerably lower and fluctuates far more
widely, apparently in response to the size and intensity of an event,
antecedent soil moisture conditions and evapotranspiration.
In addition to an increase in the volume of runoff with urbanization,
there is a concomitant increase in the rate of flow. The concentrations of
many pollutants, most notable suspended solids, increase as flow rates
increase (Fig. 5). Thus, the increased volume of runoff, coupled with
higher pollutant concentrations, yields much higher pollutant loads. The
concentrations of some pollutants—i.e., dissolved phosphorus—do not appear
to increase with increasing flow rates, but remain relatively constant from
base flow to event flow. Chloride concentrations often showed an inverse
relationship with flow.
In urban areas, higher loads of lead were observed at the freeway and
heavy industrial sites (Nos. 413615 and 413616) and greater total phosphorus
and suspended solid loads occurred at a medium density residential area
experiencing development, and at the freeway and heavy industrial sites
(Nos. 413011, 413615 and 413616) (Table 9, 11 and 13).
Temporal Variations in Nonpoint Pollutant Loads
Large variations in seasonal and annual pollutant concentrations and
loads were observed at all stations (Table 8-13). While a positive
correlation generally exists between pollutant concentrations and loading
rates, a far stronger correlation is observed between flow rates and
pollutant loading rates. Event flow is the best predictor of pollutant
loading; hence seasonal and annual rainfall is the best indicator of
seasonal and annual pollutant loads.
Excluding seasonal loading variations due to differences in rainfall,
the highest loads of chlorides were observed in spring and of suspended
solids in summer. Total phosphorus showed inconsistent seasonal trends, but
dissolved phosphorus remained fairly constant from season to season.
Concentrations of most parameters were lowest in the fall.
25
-------
70TH STREET SPRING 1977
70TH STREET
SPRING. 1977
NJ
CO
O
~
O
u_
12
10
8
6
4
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 +
"*" + + +
+ + + ++ +
: +-H- + + -H- +
- ++ V" + + ^
; + +
-+1- + ++ + +
*£+ <+
£i +
i iii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0. 100. 200. 300. 400. 500. 600. 700. 800.
CO
IT
CJ
• — '
3
LJ_
12
10
8
6
4
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
'• +
+ +
+
- ++++
++
V*- +
+ J.
+
+ + + +
-+++ +%
- *\|k :
+ + +
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I 1 I 1 ; I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1
CQNC (MG/L)
SUSP. SQLIDS
.00 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45
CQNC (MG/L) D.R.PHQS
70TH STREET SPRING 1977
70TH STREET
SPRING, 1977
CO
O
3
O
u_
12.0
10. 0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
.0
1 +
: ^ +
+ +
+ + +
~ + + +
- V +++ +
+ ± * +
: ^ ?
* +•*• T +
•.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.iiiii.iiit.iiii.iiiiiiiii.ii.il
.0 .1 .2 .3 -4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1
CONC (MG/L) TQTflL PHQS
CO
O
~^
O
12
10
8
6
4
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1
L *? +
++
: + +
,
+ +++
- *+ / ++ +
+ "N-
:,,,,,, * ,,*",,,, , , , ,
0. 100. 200. 300- 400. 500. 600. 700. 800. 900.
CONC (MG/L) CHLORIDES
Figure 5. Relationships of event flow and parameter concentrations at 70th St. (413005) during
spring 1977.
-------
Pollutant loads and antecedent conditions (days since last significant
rainfall) were not correlated. Possible relationships that may have existed
were perhaps obscured by overriding variables, i.e., rainfall magnitude and
intensity.
Pollutant concentrations generally were correlated with flow rates.
During an event, however, concentrations at given flow rates were typically
higher on the rising limb of the hydrograph than at equivalent flow rates on
the falling limb. This was most consistently evident with particulates, but
because of the positive correlation between levels of suspended solids and
total phosphorus and lead, the latter also exhibited this phenomena.
Dissolved phosphorus did not respond in this manner.
This first flush phenomenon was often but not always observed.
Overall, the cumulative pollutograph (percent of total pollutant load that
has passed at any point in an event) surpassed or preceded the cumulative
hydrograph. The relative magnitude of first flush was not correlated with
the size of an event since pollutant concentrations remained high throughout
very large events. This first flush effect also was noted more strongly
among the predominantly single land use stations, probably because the
larger areas at the main stem stations tended to normalize concentrations.
27
-------
4. EFFECTS OF TRIBUTARY INPUTS ON LAKE MICHIGAN DURING HIGH FLOWS
The effects of the combined inputs from the Menomonee, Milwaukee and
Kinnickinnic Rivers on Lake Michigan water quality were investigated.
Estimates of annual river loadings indicated that the Menomonee River
usually discharged 50% of the annual river loadings reaching the Milwaukee
Harbor and the effect of the Menomonee River on Lake Michigan water quality
could not be isolated from that of the Milwaukee and Kinnikinnic Rivers
(Table 14). The study focused on the area around the Milwaukee Harbor. The
area was divided into four regions, namely, inner and outer harbors and
inshore and offshore zones (Fig. 6). The inner harbor was bounded upstream
by the point on the river where the lake and harbor seiche effects were no
longer apparent and downstream by the outermost point of the shipping
channel. The breakwater separated the outer harbor from the inshore zone;
the inshore zone extended 5 km (3.1 miles) into the lake. Water quality
surveys were conducted in the study area during periods of high and low flow
in the rivers. The parameter list included nutrients, suspended solids and
metals.
Water quality surveys indicated that the concentration levels of
measured parameters decreased as distance from the confluence of the rivers
increased. Each of the four regions was characterized by a different set of
concentrations. Average concentrations of suspended solids in the inner and
outer harbors and inshore and offshore zone were 19, 9, 3, and 1 mg/L,
respectively (Table 15). This phenomenon occurred during baseflow and
runoff event flow periods. The large concentration gradient of the
parameters from the outer harbor to the inshore zone indicated how
effectively the breakwater prevented mixing of water between the two
zones. This pattern of water quality degradation indicates that the rivers
and the Jones Island Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) are sources of pollutants
to the harbor and the inshore zone. The STP has a mean annual flow of 6.2
cms (219 cfs) and contributes a major portion of the total annual pollutant
loading to the harbor (Table 14). The runoff events surveyed immediately
affected harbor water quality. However, for most events only the
concentrations for suspended solids and total organic nitrogen were higher
than the baseflow values In the inner harbor. The water quality of the
inshore zone usually was not degraded during high flow periods. Although
more pollutants were available in the harbor for transport to the inshore
zone, most events did not transport a large enough portion of the pollutants
to increase concentrations in the .inshore zone. Only the February 13 and
25, 1976 snowmelt runoff surveys showed slightly elevated suspended solids
concentrations, and the exceptionally large rain event on July 18, 1977
elevated suspended solid and chloride concentrations in the inshore zone.
The event surveys indicated that the current patterns in the harbor and
harbor structures were modifying pollutant transport to the inshore zone.
28
-------
Table 14. Annual water (m3 x 107) and pollutant (kg x 10^) loadings to the Milwaukee Harbor
Source Water
Menomonee
River* 8
Milwaukee
River* 36
Three rivers
combined** 45
STP 20
Solids P
Total Suspended Total Soluble
6,200 1,500 2.8 1.2
16,000 1,430 7.6 5.5
23,000 3,000 10.7 6.9
16,000 780 12.8 2.9
(N03+N02)-N Cl Pb
13 1,250 0.87
36 1,200 3.5
50 2,520 4.5
3,900
*Menomonee River pollutant values were based on 1976 data, Milwaukee River values were based on 1973,
1974, 1975 data and the STP values were 1976 data. The water data were averages of long-term
records.
**The Kinnickinnic River loading was considered to be 3% of the total loadings from the other two
rivers.
-------
MILWAUKEE
LAKE
MICHIGAN
Jones Island STP X
Inner Harbor |
Outer Harbor
kilometer
Fig. 6. Milwaukee Harbor.
30
-------
Table 15. Mean annual surface concentrations of pollutants in mg/L in the harbor region*
Mean
Region or tributary flow, cms
Inner harbor —
Outer harbor —
Inshore zone —
Menomonee River 2.5
Milwaukee River 11.3
Combined rivers** 14.4
Jones Island STP 6.2
Solids
Total
405
245
180
780
460
510
840
Suspended
19
9
3
190
40
67
40
Total
0.17
0.06
0.02
0.35
0.21
0.24
0.66
P
Soluble
0.070
0.016
0.003
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
(N03+N02)-N
0.70
0.40
0.22
1.7
1.0
1.1
—
Cl
54
31
8
160
33
56
200
*Means include values from this study and the literature.
**Combined Menomonee, Milwaukee and Kinnickinnic Rivers.
-------
Current directions and velocities at the harbor mouth opening (between
the inner and outer harbors) and at the central breakwater opening (between
the outer harbor and the inshore zone) were measured to characterize the
mechanism controlling pollutant transport between regions. Measurements
indicate that the action of the lake and harbor seiches controls transport
more than does combined flow from the rivers. Seiche has been observed to
cause the direction of flow for different strata or for the entire water
column to reverse itself during runoff events at the harbor mouth and at the
central breakwater opening (Table 16). This oscillation of flow between
regions results in a pulsing of the event-generated pollutants from the more
polluted region to the less polluted region across these two boundaries.
The pulsing phenomenon also was verified by the water quality at the central
breakwater opening alternating between that of the inshore zone and the
harbor. The size of the plug of pollutants depends largely on the seiche
characteristics for any period. This apparent pulsing occurs during times
of event and baseflow. An exception to the pulsing, seiche-controlled
pattern probably occurs during times of exceptionally large event flow, when
a relatively consistent flow of water could be expected to move outward into
the inshore zone with short residence time in the harbor. On July 18, 1977
the flow at the surface was not observed to reverse direction for the
measurement period. Although the results of watershed studies have
indicated that a large portion of the pollutants were discharged to the
harbor during high flow periods, the net transport of event and baseflow
water to the inshore zone apparently depended more on harbor current
patterns. The harbor current patterns and structures were able to impose a
significant residence time on all pollutants discharged into the harbor
before entering the inshore zone.
A mass balance equation was used to quantify the average annual amounts
of pollutants reaching the inshore zone. Residence times were estimated to
be 5 and 6 days for the inner and outer harbors, respectively. The
residence times were averages for all conditions and probably decreased
significantly for the portions of pollutants discharged to the inner harbor
during periods of high flows. The percentage of the total annual loadings
to the harbor entering the inshore zone was estimated to be 45% for
suspended solids, 61% for total phosphorus and 35% for soluble phosphorus.
Although the percentages were only gross estimates, they demonstrated that
the harbor retained a significant portion of the annual loading from the
river and STP. Although the portion of the event pollutants retained in the
harbor was not known, it was estimated that 70% of the suspended solids
discharged from the Menomonee River during events was retained annually in
the inner harbor. The amount of suspended solids in the plume for the July
18, 1977 event was estimated to be 5% of the total suspended solids entering
the inshore zone each year. The pollutants associated with the particulate
matter settled out during their residence time in the harbor. Higher
concentrations of total phosphorus, organic nitrogen and metals in the
harbor bottom sediments relative to the river and lake sediments provided
further evidence that pollutants were deposited in the harbor.
The dispersion pattern of pollutants reaching the inshore zone was
manifested as small islands of turbid water in the inshore zone or a narrow
band of turbid water long the outside of the breakewater. Only during the
32
-------
Table 16. Water quality data, current velocities and directions at harbor stations during three events
Time, hr
1510
1515
1630
1635
1815
1830
1905
1910
1530
1540
1720
1725
1845
1850
1925
1935
1550
1555
1400
1405
1515
;520
1700
1710
1905
1915
1615
1620
1730
1740
1845
1850
1330
1335
1445
1450
1715
1720
1740
1745
Depth,
m
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
Suspenc
solids ,
12
14
10
9
9
6
8
6
6
4
6
3
4
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
35
40
27
34
23
25
26
22
25
22
25
26
57
41
25
6
16
2
22
15
led P,
mg/L Total
STATION
0.11
0.07
0.12
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.04
STATION NO. 2
0.04
0.02
0.05
<0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
STATION NO. 3
0.03
<0.02
STATION NO. 4
<0.02
<0.02
STATION
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.08
STATION NO. 2
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
STATION
0.20
0.10
STATION NO. 2
0.12
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.06
mj>/L
Soluble
NO. 1 -
0.039
<0.004
0.031
0.004
0.017
0.004
0.014
0.004
Temperature
Cl, mg/L DO, mg/L °C
HARBOR MOUTH - 6/28/1977
5.0
8.6
3.8
8.6
4.6
9.4
8.0
12.0
19
12
20
12
19
11
18
12
Current
Velocity,
kmph
1.3
0.28
0.74
0.56
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
Direction,
degrees
100
350
80
285
65
310
75
265
- BREAKWATER CENTRAL OPENING - 6/28/1977
<0.004
<0.004
0.006
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
- 0.8 km
<0.004
<0.004
- 1.6 km
<0.004
<0.004
NO. 1 -
0.011
0.040
<0.004
0.012
0.009
0.009
10.0
9.8
8.2
9.1
11.2
12.0
9.0
12.0
EAST OF BREAKWATER - 6/28/1977
12.0
12.0
EAST OP BREAKWATER - 6/28/1977
10.8
11.6
HARBOR MOUTH - 6/30/1977
8.9
8.8
3.7
5.7
4.8
7.4
16
14
17
8
16
10
16
8
15
12
12
10
16
13
18
16
17
13
0.93
0.56
0.37
0.46
0.93
0.37
0.83
0.28
—
—
—
—
0.56
0.56
1.20
0.65
0.74
0.30
90
135
140
250
120
140
115
140
—
—
277
240
90
208
37
218
- BREAKWATER CENTRAL OPENING - 6/30/1977
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
< 0.004
0.004
0.006
NO. 1
0.041
0.012
10.5
10.7
10.5
10.4
— —
—
HARBOR MOUTH - 7/18/1977
36 3.0
24 9.4
10
10
10
10
12
12
24
14
0.37
1.57
0.74
0.83
0.65
0.46
1.11
0.37
283
227
158
345
104
172
90
70
- BREAKWATER CENTRAL OPENING - 6/30/1977
0.019
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
0.010
0.050
26 6.3
11 11.0
20
9
21 6.6
20 8.5
20
10
19
8
20
15
0.56
0.83
0.46
0.93
1.11
1.20
120
290
330
250
95
90
33
-------
July 18, 1977 event was a continous plume observed (4 km directly east into
the lake from the breakwater central opening) (Fig. 7). A plume from the
breakwater's northern opening extended approximately 2.5 km in a
northeasterly direction on July 18, 1977. On July 19, the visible plume
from the breakwater's central opening had grown slightly larger (to 5 km in
east-west extent) and a plume out of the breakwater's southern opening
extended approximately 2.5 km parallel to the shore. Since surface values
of suspended solids were higher than bottom values, it is assumed that the
plume extended to the thermocline. Pollutant dispersion in the inshore zone
would be highly variable and dependent on wind direction. The summer
current has a weak tendency to go in a southerly direction and the winter
currents have a strong tendency to go in a northerly direction.
Resuspension and/or shoreline erosion elevated the levels of suspended
solids along the shore in the vicinity of the Milwaukee Harbor on April 8,
1976. A significant runoff event had not occurred for almost 2 weeks. The
values for suspended solids were higher than those observed in the inshore
zone during the July 18, 1977 rain event. Approximately twice as much
suspended solids was in the water column of the inshore zone in the vicinity
of Milwaukee as a result of this resuspension/erosion event than was in the
July 18, 1977 rain event plume. The amount of suspended solids in the
inshore zone on April 8, 1976 represented about 12% of the annual suspended
solids loading to the lake from the harbor. Resuspension and shoreline
erosion could significantly increase suspended solids loading to the inshore
zone each year.
34
-------
MILWAUKEE
LAKE
MICHIGAN
Fig. 7. Visible plumes following 7/18/1977 event.
35
-------
5. LAND USE/WATER QUALITY MODELING
One objective of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study was to
develop a predictive capability for estimating pollutant loadings from land
drainage related to land use. Two modeling methods were developed; one
model involved the simple empirical modeling of runoff quality from small
watersheds and the other was the more sophisticated model known as LANDRUN.
LANDRUN
LANDRUN, a dynamic hydrologic-sediment transport model, was developed
to estimate the quantity and composition of runoff water and participates
emanating from watersheds that have mixed land uses. The model simulates
the overland hydrologic transport of pollutants (Fig. 8) and accounts for:
a. land uses including imperviousness, land surface characteristics and soil
characteristics; b. local meteorology, including rainfall, snowmelt,
temperature, evaporation and evapotranspiration; c. pollutant input, i.e.,
dust and dirt fallout and adsorbed pollutants in the soil. The model can
estimate stormwater runoff volume, sediment transport from pervious and
impervious areas, volatile suspended solids and soil-adsorbed pollutants
contained in runoff. LANDRUN is a continuous simulation model which also
may be used to analyze single storm events.
To ensure results that resemble a real-world situation a model must be
calibrated and verified. LANDRUN was calibrated and verified with extensive
monitoring data from pilot subwatersheds in the Menomonee River Watershed.
The model then demonstrated its ability to reproduce field data for medium
and large storms with adequate accuracy for such parameters as runoff,
sediment, volatile suspended solids and adsorbed phosphorus.
A soil adsorption subroutine describing the overland transport of
phosphorus was incorporated into LANDRUN. This subroutine can be calibrated
for simulating pesticide and toxic metal loadings and routing.
Application of LANDRUN to Watershed Studies
A simulation model calibrated and verified with extenstive field
measurements and monitoring data could be a useful tool for predictive
purposes in watersheds with similar physical and meteorological
characteristics. The LANDRUN model was ued to a. obtain unit pollutant
loadings for typical land uses to better understand the processes and
factors involved in pollutant generation and transport from urban and rural
areas and b. assess pollutant loadings from 48 subwatersheds in the
Menomonee River Watershed in an attempt to identify critical source areas.
36
-------
RAIN (SNOW)
£### URBAN AREA W&&K
OUT OF BASIN TRANSPORT
AREAL SOURCES
SURFACE RUNOFF
INTERFLOW
BASE FLOW
POINT SOURCES
SEWAGE OUTFALLS
Figure 8. A schematic representation of pollutant transport.
-------
MEUL
The Model Enhancing Unit Loading (MEUL) analysis assesses pollutant
loadings from various land uses on a directly comparative basis. LANDRUN
provided the simulation of loadings for seven urban and five rural land
uses.
To simulate pollutant loadings, each land use was assigned typical
values for variables such as degree of imperviousness, fraction of
impervious areas directly connected to a channel, depression storage,
permeability of pervious areas, slope, soil moisture characteristics, etc.
In addition, variables describing atmospheric fallout, litter accumulation,
street sweeping practices and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) inputs
were selected. The values were based on Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
data or on literature values typical of midwestern urban areas. Each land
use was simulated as if located on four hydrologically different soils
representative of standard hydrologic categories. Simulation runs yielded
loading diagrams which were used to estimate average year or long-term
average pollutant loadings for 12 land uses (Table 17 and 18). Developing
urban areas, high density urban areas with no cleaning practices, livestock
feedlots and steep-sloped crop lands have the highest polluant potential,
while the pollutant potential of parks and recreational areas, low density
residential areas and most urban areas with good cleaning practices is much
less.
Differences in pollutant loadings among land uses were attributable to
the variability of causative factors affecting loadings. Sensitivity
analyses were used to test the effects of various factors on loadings. The
most significant parameters were extent of imperviousness of urban areas,
fraction of impervious areas directly connected to a runoff channel,
depression and interception storage, average length of the dry period
preceding a rain, and curb height for urban areas and soil type, slope and
vegetation cover for pervious urban and rural areas.
A comparative assessment of unit loadings for various land uses could
provide a means of ranking them as hazards in terms of pollution
contribution. Simulated loadings of suspended solids, total phosphorus and
lead were used to weigh the pollution contribution of various land uses in
the Menomonee River Watershed. The simulated loadings were based on the
predominant soil type (Ozaukee silt loam) and on an average soil slope range
of 2 to 6%.
Average loadings for suspended sediment, total phosphorus and lead,
based on the 12 major land use categories in the Menomonee River Watershed,
are given in Table 19. These loadings reflect potential pollutant
generation at the sources and are given as kg/ha/yr. By comparing river
mouth loadings (70th St.) obtained from the monitoring program with total
loadings generated at the sources, it was estimated that the delivery ratios
for suspended sediment, total phosphorus and lead were about 10%.
River mouth loadings for each land use were obtained for suspended
sediment, total phosphorus and lead applying the delivery ratio. Data are
38
-------
Table 17. Simulated loadings* for an average year (1968) for soils of slope category B, 2 to 6%
VO
Soils and maintenance
Imperv, ,
7.
Sediment
, kg/ha
Volatile susp. solids,
kg/ha
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Low Density
Poor soils, poorly
maintained area
Poor soils, well
maintained area
Permeable soils, poorly
maintained area
Permeable soils, well
maintained area
Poorly maintained area
Well maintained area
25
25
25
25
60
60
24
16
24
16
221
141
300
130
225
55
900
275
450
365
240
180
1,100
540
150
100
130
35
600
120
2.0
1.25
2.0
1.25
Medium
17
11
19
5
15
3
Density
70
19
High Density
Poorly maintained area
Well maintained area
95
95
294
187
2,090
304
2,040
800
1,700
200
22
14
180
20
Winter
POi.-P,
Spring
kg/ha
Summer
Pb, kg/ha
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Residential
.0 22.0
.0 13.0
.0 13.0
.0 4.0
**
**
**
**
0
0
0
0
.016
.01
.016
.01
0.
0.
0.
0.
44
36
15
04
1.10
1.00
0.18
0.12
0.34
0.20
O.I/
0.03
0
0
0
0
.035
.035
.23
.023
0.29
0.036
0.29
0.036
0.25
0.057
0.25
0.056
0.24
0.012
0.24
0.012
Residential
80
34
98
19
0
0
.14
.09
1.
1.
25
10
1.36
1.00
0.98
0.13
0
0
.32
.21
1.31
0.31
1.43
0.50
0.90
0.11
Residential
158
60
498
28
0
0
.20
.13
1.
0.
62
33
1.44
0.70
1.50
0.16
0
0
.43
.27
3.40
0.49
2.98
0.67
2.80
0.28
Commercial
Poorly maintained area
Well maintained area
90
90
264
167
1,950
283
1,920
516
1,720
200
16
10
121
17
115
28
287
34
0
0
.11
.07
1.
0.
00
30
1.30
0.60
1.00
0.20
1
0
.06
.66
8.16
1.03
7.08
1.60
6.63
0.25
Industrial
Poorly maintained area
Well maintained area
90
90
403
256
2,970
420
2,770
1,200
2,600
330
29
18
229
298
201
83
520
65
0
0
.21
.13
2.
0.
00
60
2.40
1.10
2.18
0.30
0
0
.54
.33
4.25
0.54
3.71
1.50
3.48
0.40
*Simulated loadings were obtained assuming dust fallout rates of 0.8 tonnes/km2/day except for park and recreational areas where the value was increased to
1.4 in the Spring and to 3.5 tonnes/km2/day in the Fall because of the effect of dead vegetation.
**60 to 85% of the total sediment was in the form of vegetation.
-------
Table 18. Simulated pollution loadings for land uses on essentially pervious areas
Soil and
slope*
Sediment, kg/ha
Spring
Summer Fall
Spring
Park and Recreation — SC+ =
BMA
BMB
BMC
HMA
HUB
HMC
OUA
OUB
OUC
OUD
ASA
ASB
ASC
BMA
BMB
BMC
HMA
HMB
HMC
OUA
OUB
OUC
OUD
ASA
ASB
ASC
BMA
BMB
BMC
HMA
HMB
HMC
OUA
OUB
OUC
OUD
ASA
ASB
ASC
BMA
BMB
BMC
HMA
HMB
HMC
OUA
OUB
OUC
OUD
ASA
ASB
ASC
18
44
120
30
94
275
55
172
501
1,290
61
184
532
<1
1,
14
<1
3.
28
<1
8.
85
1,400
<1
7.
94
<10
303
2,800
<10
655
5,500
<10
1,665
17,000
280,000
<10
1,420
18,700
936
2,450
7,200
2,440
6,390
18,800
8,200
21,000
61,400
142,000
3,380
8,840
26,000
23 17
64 26
186 82
52 26
160 46
477 174
64 30
235 55
692 217
1,770 599
115 31
340 57
1,010 225
Woodland — SC •=
<1 <1
.5 1.0 <1
35 9.4
<1 <1
.3 2.2 <1
80 19
<1 <1
,3 6.2 <1
150 32
1,300 2,850
2.9 <1
1 32 2.1
334 50
Row Crops — SC
<10 <10
16 <10
560 150
<10 <10
36 <10
1,280 296
10 <10
100 <10
2,400 518
20,900 4,565
46 <10
505 34
5,340 800
Feedlots— SC -
1,490 452
3,240 1,360
8,750 5,430
3,600 1,130
7,860 3,395
21,200 13,600
18,200 3,000
39,600 9,000
107,000 36,000
245,000 100,000
8,700 1,380
18,900 4,130
51,200 16,500
0.02
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.14
0.41
0.09
0.30
0.80
2.31
0.17
0.55
1.63
0.005
<0.001
P0,,-p
Summer
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.24
0.72
0.13
0.42
1.25
3.19
0.35
1.05
3.11
Sediment, kg/ha POit -?
Fall
Spring
Summer
Fall
Spring
Summer
Fall
Pasture — SC = 0.03
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.25
0.05
0.09
0.38
1.07
0.08
0.15
0.68
25
102
330
60
252
795
134
487
1,470
3,830
152
522
1,560
54
178
543
142
466
1,420
206
690
2,060
5,300
330
1,000
3,000
21
47
216
48
107
492
60
135
620
1,770
62
140
645
0.02
0.10
0.33
0.09
0.36
1.19
0.23
0.87
2.65
6.89
0.47
1.60
4.85
0.05
0.17
0.54
0.21
0.68
2.12
0.37
1.22
3.71
9.53
1.03
3.11
9.30
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.07
0.16
0.73
0.11
0.24
1.11
3.18
0.19
0.43
1.99
Wetland — SC = 0.03
<0.001
0.0015 0.001
0.014
<0.001
0.005
0.041
<0.001
0.015
0.153
2.52
<0.001
0.022
0.28
=• 1.0 or
<0.01
0.30
2.8
<0.01
0.98
8.25
<0.01
3.00
30.6
505
<0.01
4.39
57.9
1.0
1.82
5.89
14.4
7.33
19.2
56.4
29.5
75.6
221
511
21.0
54.8
161
0.035
<0.001
0.003
0.012
<0.001
0.011
0.270
2.34
0.009
0.098
1.35
0.08
<0.01
0.02
0.56
<0.01
0.05
1.92
0.02
0.18
4.31
37.5
0.14
1.56
16.9
2.97
6.48
17.4
10.8
23.6
63.8
65.5
142
385
882
52.1
117
317
<0.001
<0.001
0.010
<0.001
<0.001
0.027
<0.001
<0.001
0.059
0.52
<0.001
0.007
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
<0.01
<0.01
0.44
<0.01
<0.01
0.94
8.28
<0.01
0.11
2.50
0.90
2.71
10.9
3.39
10.2
40.7
10.8
32.4
129
360
8.53
25.6
102
26
97
**
69
256
AA
119
441
AA
AA
140
519
AA
830
3,400
11,000
2,000
8,400
26,500
4,500
16,200
49,100
128,000
5,100
17,400
52,200
45
144
AA
124
395
AA
248
655
AA
AA
350
1,090
AA
1,800
5,900
18,100
4,700
15,500
47,200
6,900
23,000
68,700
177,000
11,000
33,500
100,000
4
12
AA
11
34
AA
19
58
AA
AA
25
80
AA
Developing
700
1,600
7,200
1,600
3,600
16,400
2,000
4,500
20,700
59,000
2,100
4,700
21,500
0.03
0.10
AA
0.10
0.38
AA
0.21
0.79
AA
AA
0.43
1.61
AA
Urban — SC
0.83
3.40
11.0
3.00
12.6
39.7
8.10
29.2
88.4
229
15.8
54.0
161
0.05
0.14
AA
0.19
0.59
AA
0.45
1.18
AA
AA
1.09
3.37
AA
= 1.0
1.80
5.90
18.1
7.05
23.3
71.0
12.4
41.4
123
34.1
104
310
<0.001
0.01
AA
0.02
0.05
AA
0.03
0.11
AA
AA
0.08
0.25
AA
0.70
1.60
7.20
2.40
5.40
24.6
3.60
8.10
37.3
106
6.51
14.6
66.7
*BM is Boyer Is, HM is Hochheim 1, OU is Ozaukee sil, and AS is Ashkum sicl; A is 0 to 2%, B is 2 to 6%, C is 6 to 12% and D
is 12 to 20% slope.
**Not applicable.
+SC is the cropping factor used in USLE.
40
-------
Table 19. Average parameter loadings (potential credibility at source) for
the land use categories designated in the Menomonee River
Watershed
Loading, kg/ha/ yr
Land use category
Industrial
Commercial
High density residential
Medium density residential
Low density residential
Land under development
Row crops
Pastures and small grains
Park and recreation**
Forested lands and woodlots
Wetlands
Feedlots
Area* , ha
638
2,104
604
9,110
247
1,073
4,806
5,253
4,509
1,969
1,069
32
Sediment
5,450
3,500
3,800
1,950
610
43,700
1,780
1,310
460
15
1,150
69,600
Total P
4.46
3.15
3.04
3.02
1.03
78.7
3.19
2.33
0.81
0.03
2.08
250
Lead
7.38
13.2
5.66
2.54
0.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*Total area of watershed reckoned at 70th St. monitoring station (413005)
is 32,305 ha; landfills and dumps, water and freeway areas comprised of
106, 142 and 542 ha, respectively.
**Park and recreation included in land use category pastures and small
grains is segregated.
41
-------
shown in Table 20 and include estimated amount and percent contribution of
each land use to the total loadings at the river mouth.
The highest unit area loadings for suspended solids and total
phosphorus were for feedlot operations. Only developing urban land areas
approached the same order of magnitude of loadings. It should be pointed
out that developing urban areas represent only 3.3% of the total land area
of the Watershed but contribute about 47 and 51%, respectively, of the
suspended solids and total phosphorus at the river mouth. Examination of
Table 20 clearly shows that feedlot operations do not significantly
contribute to the total river mouth loadings for suspended sediment and
total phosphorus. Thus, when considering the relative degree of hazard,
unit area loading and percent loading at the river mouth for each of these
pollutants, care must be taken in interpreting the significance of any given
land use.
However, the issue is more straightforward when considering lead. The
unit area loading for lead was highest in commercial areas. About 50% of
the total river mouth loading of lead originated from commercial areas.
Thus, the commercial land use category has the highest degree of hazard, the
highest unit loading and by far the greatest contribution to the total river
mouth loadings. The commercial land use category (including transportation)
accounts for about 7% of the total area of the Menomonee River Watershed.
The relative degrees of hazard (impact on water quality) for the land
use categories are interpreted on the basis of a logarithmic scale. Using
suspended sediment as an example, the loading at the river mouth for
wetlands (115 kg/ha/yr) is about 100 times greater than that for forested
land and woodlots (1.5 kg/ha/yr) and is assigned a hazard degree ranking of
3.
The delivery ratios used in the analysis are not precise values but
only represent rough estimates because they are based on comparison of the
monitoring data for a limited time frame with simulated loadings based on
long-term averages. However, this information could have important
consequences for the development of management strategies since a reduction
of about 50% in suspended solids and total phosphorus might be achieved by
treatment of about 3% of the land area. Similarly, about 50% reduction in
lead reaching the river mouth might be achieved by treatment of 7% of the
land area. Thus, in the development of remedial measures, decisions must be
made on the relative importance of land use and different parameters as they
impact lake quality and use. Therefore, it should be possible to define the
minimum area in a watershed to be controlled in order to achieve a
predetermined reduction in loading.
Simulation of loadings in 48 subwatersheds
LANDRUN was used to predict runoff and sediment loadings from 48
subwatersheds of diverse land uses and physical characteristics. Results
from the simulation should help demonstrate what land features, land uses or
land activities contribute to high pollutant lodings and eventually identify
critical source areas of nonpoint pollution within the Watershed.
42
-------
Table 20. Relative degree of hazard and parameter loadings at river mouth for suspended sediment, total
phosphorus and lead for various land use catgories in th Henomonee River Watershed utilizing unit load
values at the 70th St. (413005) monitoring station
Land use category
Forested land and woodlot
Park and recreation
Low density residential
Wetlands
Pastures and small grains
Row crops
Medium density residential
Commercial
High density residential
Industrial
Land under development
Feedlots
Forested land and woodlot
Park and recreation
Low density residential
Wetlands
Pastures and small grains
Medium density residential
High density residential
Commercial
Row Crops
Industrial
Land under development
Feedlots
Forested land and woodlot
Park and recreation
Pastures and small grains
Wetlands
Row crops
Feedlots
Land under development
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High density residential
Industrial
Commercial
Unit loads* at
river mouth, kg/hi
1.5
46
61
115
131
178
195
350
380
545
4,370
6,960
0.003
0.081
0.103
0.208
0.233
0.302
0.304
0.315
0.319
0.446
7.87
25.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.047
0.254
0.566
0.738
1.32
Loading at river mouth
i/yr kg/yr/land use
Suspended sediment
2,950
207,400
15,000
122,900
688,100
855,500
1,776,500
736,400
229,500
347,700
4,689,000
222,700
9,893,650
Total Phosphorus
6
365
3
222
1,224
2,751
184
663
1,533
284
8,444
800
16,479
Lead
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
2,314
342
471
2,777
5,916
7. Land use
0.03
2.1
0.15
1.2
7.0
8.6
18.0
7.4
2.3
3.5
47.4
2.3
0.04
2.2
0.02
1.3
7.4
16.7
1.1
4.0
9.3
1.7
51.2
4.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.20
39.1
5.8
8.0
46.9
Land use Relative degree
area, % of hazard
6.1
14.0
0.8
3.3
16.3
15.0
28.3
6.5
1.9
2.0
3.3
0.1
97.6**
6.1
14.0
0.8
3.3
16.3
28.3
1.9
6.5
15.0
2.0
3.3
0.1
97.6**
6.1
14.1
16.3
3.3
15.0
0.1
3.3
0.8
28.3
1.9
2.0
6.5
97.6**
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
5.5
1
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2.5
*10% delivery ratio was assumed from potential transportable pollutants shown in Table 19.
**Landfill and dump, water and freeway areas comprise 2.4% of area of basin.
43
-------
To perform LANDRUN simulations for the 48 subwatersheds, three types of
data are needed: a. land use and associated characteristics in each
subwatershed; b. meteorological information within or near the Watershed;
c. dust and dirt data. The model required subwatersheds to be divided into
uniform areas based on land use and soil characteristics. A land use within
a subwatershed with two different hydrologic soil groups was considered as
two sub-areas. Summation of values for sub-areas and land uses constituted
the loading for a particular subwatershed.
Sediment loadings were simulated during the summer of 1977. Loading
estimates reflect potential sediment generation at the source. Critical
source areas were identified by estimating a delivery ratio for each land
use in each subwatershed based on the extent of connected imperviousness,
physical characteristics and proximity to the stream of that land use.
Sediment data were adjusted accordingly, accounting for the delivery
ratios. The range of values are shown in Fig. 9. Nine subwatersheds
located in the urbanized southern portion of the Watershed contribute
significant amounts of sediment. These high source areas constitute 16% of
the total area but contributed almost 50% of the total sediment loadings.
The high sediment yields from these subwatersheds can be ascribed mainly to
developing areas and—to a cetain degree—to medium density residential
areas. Developing areas were present in almost all of the subwatersheds.
However, high amounts of sediments were transported from developing areas in
the critical subwatersheds essentially because of their short distances to
the stream and extensive connected imperviousness. Although high amounts of
sediment can be potentially eroded in other subwatersheds—particularly
those in the rural portion of the Watershed—delivery of sediment to the
stream could be impeded as a result of low connected imperviousness and/or
greater distance to the stream. Medium density residential areas, the
predominant land use in the critical subwatersheds, were significant sources
of sediment loadings. Due to extensive impervious surfaces in these areas,
dust and dirt washoff was prevalent.
Integration of the loadings from various land uses for the entire
Watershed indicates that developing areas occupying 3% of the total area
(Table 21) contribute over 50% of the total sediment loadings. Contribution
from medium density residential areas—which is the largest land use in the
Watershed—amounted to 23%.
Simulated sediment loadings compared reasonably well with those
monitored at the mainstem stations (Fig. 10). The close agreement between
the simulated and monitored data indicates the validity of the delivery
ratios used for each land use and the integrity of the sediment estimates
for each subwatershed.
It has been shown that the model is a useful tool in identifying
critical nonpoint source areas of sediment in the Menomonee River
Watershed. Results indicate that developing areas in ubanizing
subwatersheds are the most cost-effective to manage. The method is
applicable to other watersheds. However, the difficulty of simulating
sediment loadings on pervious areas requires some recalibration and
reverification of the model in other watersheds using monitored data. The
44
-------
kg/ha
0-150
150-350
>350
Menomonee River
and tributaries
Figure 9. Distribution of simulated sediment loadings
in the Menomonee River Watershed—summer 1977,
45
-------
Table 21. Water (m3) and sediment (kg) loadings estimated by LANDRUN for each land use in the Menomonee River Watershed (area in ha)—Summer 1977
ON
LAND USE
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
MED/DENS/RES
LO/DENS/RES
HI/DENS/RES
DEVELOPING
ROW CROPS
PK/REC/PASTR
FORESTS
WETLANDS
FEEDLOTS
LANDFILL
WATER
FREEWAYS
TOTALS
WATER
PERV
108658.
2. 3%
530245.
11.4%
1318740.
28. 4%
32057.
. 7%
139462.
3. 0%
1087328.
23. 4%
77469.
1.7%
1093929.
23. 5%
49089.
1.1%
170156.
3. 7%
16278.
. 4%
26359.
. 6%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
4649770.
100. 0%
WATER
IMPER
998707.
7. 6%
3023765.
23. 1%
5813647.
44. 5%
4453.
. 0%
972818.
7. 4%
258787.
2. 0%
0.
. 0%
677001.
5.2%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
655984.
5. 0%
670673.
5.1%
13075835.
100. 0%
WATER
TOTAL
1107365.
6.2%
3554010.
20.1%
7132387.
40.2%
36510.
.2%
1112280.
6. 3%
1346115.
7. 6%
77469.
.4%
1770930.
10.0%
49089.
.3%
170156.
1. 0%
16278.
. 1%
26359.
.1%
655984.
3. 7%
670673.
3. 8%
17725605.
100. 0%
SEDIMENT
PERV
5449.
.1%
50976.
1.3%
592661.
14.8%
3841.
.1%
30810.
.8%
2802398.
69. 8%
316601.
7. 9%
178430.
4. 4%
4903.
.1%
6695.
.2%
19268.
.5%
1004.
. 0%
0.
. 0%
0.
.0%
4013036.
100. 0%
DUST/DIRT
IMPER
117205.
7.8%
350339.
23.4%
662801.
44. 3%
475.
.0%
110318.
7. 4%
28106.
1. 9%
0.
.0%
78421.
5.2%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
0.
. 0%
72644.
4. 9%
77354.
5.2%
1497663.
100.0%
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
122654.
2. 2%
401315.
7. 3%
1255462.
22. 8%
4316.
.1%
141128.
2. 6%
2830504.
51.4%
316601.
5.7%
256851.
4.7%
4903.
.1%
6695.
.1%
19268.
.3%
1004.
.0%
72644.
1. 3%
77354.
1.4%
5510699.
100. 0%
AREA
PERV
189.
.8%
770.
3.1%
6039,
24. 0%
220.
.9%
245.
1.0%
801.
3.2%
4806.
19.1%
8949.
35.5%
1969.
7.8%
1069.
4. 2%
32.
.1%
106.
.4%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
25196.
100. 0%
AREA
IMPER
449.
6.4%
1334.
19. 0%
3071.
4J. 8%
27.
.4%
359.
5.1%
272.
3. 9%
0.
.0%
813.
11.6%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
0.
.0%
142.
2. 0%
542.
7.7%
7009.
100. 0%
AREA
TOTAL
638
2.
2104.
6.
9110.
28.
247.
604.
1.
1073.
3.
4806.
14.
9762.
30.
1969.
6.
1069.
3.
32.
106.
142.
542.
1.
32205
100.
0%
5%
3%
8%
9%
3%
9%
3%
1%
3%
1%
3%
4%
7%
0%
-------
673001
Mainstem station
Henomonee River
and tributaries
413007
Fig. 10. Simulated (S) and monitored (M) sediment loadings (kg/ha) from area adjacent to mainstem
monitoring stations—summer, 1977 (monitored data taken from Bannerman, R., J. G. Konrad,
D. Becker and G. V. S'imsiman. Surface Water Monitoring Data. Part II: Quality of
Runoff from Mixed Land Uses. Final Report of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study,
Vol. 3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979).
47
-------
delivery ratio must be considered for precise assessment of critical land
uses.
Empirical Modeling of Runoff Quality
A simple empirical model was developed for calculating the time
distribution of suspended solid loads in a runoff event. The initial step
in developing the model was to determine what independent variables control
water quality in surface runoff. Instantaneous concentrations of suspended
solids were found to be related to discharge per unit drainage area,
rainfall intensity, antecedent dry period and stage of urban develoment.
Similar processes could be carried out in other water quality parameters. A
set of empirical curves developed from observations on small watersheds
within the Menomonee and Milwaukee Rivers watersheds yielded regression
coefficient for the independent variables (Fig. 11). Data in Fig. 11 can be
used to create a multiple regression equation for a small watershed for
which degree of urbanization is known, allowing suspended solids
concentrations for any percentage of urbanization to be calculated (Table
22). These concentrations can then be combined with discharges predicted by
some standard means to provide loading.
After calibration, the model was tested in watersheds from a variety of
climatic, geologic and topographic regions (Table 23). For storms within
the calibration limits of the model, it predicted loads with reasonable
accuracy. Certain limitations of the model are: a. It must be used on
2
watersheds larger than those used for calibration « 28 km ) without
introducing substantial error; b. the model is valid only for the range of
rainfall intensities and totals for which it is calibrated; c. the effect of
active construction is not accounted for in the model.
Two conclusions can be drawn from the apparent flexibility of this
statistical model. First, the regression coefficients developed for small
watersheds in the Menomonee and Milwaukee River Watersheds are valid for a
wide range of conditions. Local calibrations should be made to refine the
coefficients for local conditions. Secondly, it can be inferred that
rainfall conditions (intensity and duration of antecedent dry conditions),
amount of runoff and degree of urbanization are much more important in
determining suspended solids in urban areas than are local conditions such
as topography, geology and vegetation. If this were not the case, the
regression information transferred from one area to another would bear no
relationship with reality. The principal value of this model is the ease
with which it can be calibrated on urban areas with data that are easily
obtained.
48
-------
Location coding: BD - Brown Deer; BV - Beaver; DB - Donges Bay; HO - Honey;
NO - Noyes; SC - Schoonmaker; T - Trinity
(c)
0-
-1000
40 60 80 100
o c
CJ S
+20 -
0 .
a -20
20
40 60
100
VO
0.
-400
20
(b)
I 1 I
60 80
Urban, %
-600
(d)
"I 1 1 1-
40 60
Urban, Z
—1 1 1
80 100
Figure 11. Regression coefficients for model for total suspended solids.
-------
Table 22. Coefficients for final regression equations for various degrees
of urbanization
Watershed
urbanized, %
0
20
40
60
80
100
Coefficient
for QA,
m /sec/km
(a)
+700
+550
+400
+250
+100
-50
Coefficient
for I, cm/hr
(b)
0
+80
+200
+520
+1420
+3000
Coefficient
for A, days
(c)
-12
-3.5
-4.5
+12.5
+21
+29
Regression
contant
(d)
+160
+80
0
-120
-400
-820
*SS = a(QA) + b(I) + c(A) + d, where SS is suspended solids concentration
O n
(mg/L), QA is discharge/unit drainage area (m /sec/km ), I is rainfall
intensity (cm/hr), A is antecedent dry period (days).
50
-------
Table 23. Comparisons of predictive capabilities of model for suspended solid loads
Drainage basin
Date or Area, km2 Urban, Z
event no.
Rainfall
Amount, Intensity, Antecedent
cm cm/hr dry period, days
Loads
Observed, Predicted, Difference
kg/km2 kg/km2 %
»
Comments
Brown Deer, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
6/8/77 7.5 65
4/23/76 49.7 54
27* 4.3 80
29*
32*
9/25/70 9.6 77
10/20/70
11/5/69 0.73 100
11/5/69
1.3 0.25
Underwood
5.4 0.30
Third Fork,
3.8 1.14
6.0 0.86
2.0 0.48
Bloody
1.7 0.73
2.3 0.45
Baker Street,
1.6 0.33
1.6 0.33
3
2,900 2,290 -21
Meets all conditions
of calibration
, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
1
Durham, North
11
5
2.5
Run, Cincinnati
1
6
San Francisco,
19
1**
2,100 850 -60
Carolina
46,200 27,400 -41
14,300 19,300 +35
3,800 3,500 +8
, Ohio
3,220 5,280 +64
2,800 5,000 +79
California
1,130 6,765 +500
1,130 1,730 +53
In calibration
watershed but too
large
Outside calibration
area
Outside calibration
area
Outside calibration
area
*Taken from Colston (Colston, N. V., Jr. Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
No. EPA 670/2-74-096, 1974).
**Antecedent dry period of 1 day was substituted for the 19 days.
-------
6. DISPERSIBILITY OF SOILS AND ELEMENTAL
COMPOSITION OF SOILS AND SEDD1ENTS
The importance of particle-size fractions in evaluating pollutant
carrying capacity of sediments was investigated. Elemental composition (Al,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mi, P, Pb and Zn) in the sand-, silt- and clay-sized
fractions of major soil types, bottom sediments, suspended sediments and
urban street dust and dirt were analyzed. Ultrasound was used to determine
particle-size distribution because it leaves dispersed particles with their
associated pollutants unchanged. Sediments and dust and dirt samples with
elemental composition greater than the levels found in the major soil types
of the watershed were suspected of receiving additional inputs of pollutants
from sources other than soils.
The Cd, Pb and Zn concentrations in some bottom- and suspended-sediment
samples were found to be higher than in soils. Concentrations of these
elements were correlated significantly with each other in the clay-sized
fraction of sediments but not in soils. This indicates that soils were not
the primary source of these metals, but that other sources—i.e., vehicular
emission and atmospheric fallout—were major inputs.
Locations of pollutant input to the Menomonee River can be identified
by comparing elemental composition of the clay-sized fractions of bottom
sediments collected at different locations. Total elemental composition of
unfractionated bottom sediment samples did not identify the location of
pollutant input as precisely.
In an agricultural land use area, bottom sediment samples with P levels
greater than the soil level but without a corresponding increase in metal
composition were found. In the urban area, P, as well as Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb
and Zn levels, increased at a sediment sampling site located below the
outfall of a sanitary treatment plant (STP) with secondary treatment
capability. Clay fractions of bottom sediments from sites located below the
outfall of STPs with tertiary treatment capability showed lower levels of P
as well as metals than those found at the sampling site located below an STP
with secondary treatment capability. Apparently, the waste water treatment
for the removal of P also removed metals from the effluent.
The average P, Pb and Cd concentrations in suspended sediment samples
of the Monomonee River collected during storm events were: 1,840 )g/g P,
350 )g/g Pb and 1.9 )g/g Cd in the clay-sized fractions; 780 )g/g P,
180 )g/g Pb and 0.48 )g/g Cd in the silt-sized fractions; and was calculated
to contain 1,620 )g/g P, 290 )g/g Pb and 1.4 )g/g Cd in the unfractionated
sample. The average annual storm event loadings from suspended sediments in
the Menomonee River to Lake Michigan was calculated to be 16,200 kg/yr P,
52
-------
3,000 kg/yr Pb and 15 kg/yr Cd with about 90% of the P, Pb and Cd in the
clay-sized fraction.
The Al, Fe and Mn concentrations in the clay-sized fraction of urban
street dust and dirt samples were found to be lower than in the major
mineral soil types of the watershed, while Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn levels
were higher. Distribution of elements into the particle-size fractions fell
into two main groups. One group had 78 to 87% of the metals in the sand
fraction (Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn and Ni) and the other had 41 to 58% in the sand
fraction (Al, Cd, P and Pb) while Zn was intermediate between these two
groups (70% in the sand fraction).
Ihe Cr, Cu, Fe and Ni concentrations in the coarse particles of the
dust and dirt samples occasionally nearly equaled concentrations in fine
particles (sand vs. silt and silt vs. clay-sized particles). Similarly, Ni
concentrations in the silt-sized fractions of suspended sediments
occasionally nearly equaled the concentration in the clay-sized fraction.
This may result from their presence in large particles such as metal chips
from abrasion of vehicular parts or from disintegration of impervious
surfaces.
Soil dispersibility—a contributing factor to soil erosion and sediment
loading to waterways—was evaluated for the major soil types of the
Menomonee River Watershed. Soil samples were dispersed by shaking with
water to simulate natural water erosion conditions and by ultrasound to
provide complete dispersion. The shaking treatment consisted of agitating a
1:10 w:v soilrwater mixture for 0.5 to 128 hr. The ratio of the amount of
clay-sized particles disloged by shaking to the amount obtained by
ultrasound treatment measured the dispersibility of soils (Table 24). The
organic carbon content (0.5 to 44%) was best correlated with the soil
dispersion ratio in a negative inverse relationship. If the 4-hr shaking
treatment simulates the onset of soil erosion conditions in the field, as
much as 90% of the primary clay-sized particles remain in silt-sized or
larger aggregates during the overland transport. Thus, retaining aggregates
containing a high amount of clay-sized particles can control the amount of
clay reaching the waterways.
Resuspension of bottom sediments as simulated by end-over-end shaking
(1 to 128 hr) desorbed about 0.06% Pb and 0.7% Cd of the total in the solid
phase. Under extreme agitation, as simulated by 15 min of ultrasound
treatment, the desorption was 1.5% Pb and 2.0% Cd of the total in the solid
phase. Thus, resuspension of bottom sediments to the overlying water
possibly permits desorption of elements from the solid surfaces.
53
-------
Table 24. Dispersion ratio of the clay-sized fraction (shaking/ultrasonic)
Soils*
Time of
shaking, hr
0.5
1
4
16
32
64
128
Ozaukee
sil
0.06
0.10
0.19
0.26
0.32
0.40
0.37
Ozaukee
subsoil
0.15
0.22
0.35
0.59
0.65
0.82
0.81
Me quo n
sil
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.27
0.39
0.41
Me quo n
subsoil
0.15
0.21
0.33
0.57
0.62
0.76
0.73
Hochheim
sil
0.07
0.07
0.16
0.24
0.30
0.40
0.48
Ashkum
sicl
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.24
0.29
0.35
Pella
sil
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.19
0.24
0.28
0.33
Theresa
sil
0.08
0.13
0.19
0.26
0.29
0.38
0.43
Houghton
muck
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.22
*0rganic carbon contents of soils are: Ozaukee sil - 1.8%, Ozaukee subsoil - 0.50%, Mequon sil -
4.5%, Mequon subsoil - 0.49%, Hochheim - 2.5%, Ashkum sicl - 5.7%, Pella sil - 3.4%, Theresa sil -
1.2% and Houghton muck - 44.2%.
Blanks indicate no data.
-------
7. AVAILABILITY OF POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH RIVER SEDIMENTS
Suspended sediment samples from five Great Lakes tributaries were
collected and analyzed for pollutant availability of phosphorus, nitrogen
and trace metals. Each suspended sediment sample was composited from
several subsamples collected over an event. Several events were collected
throughout the year, with the majority of samples collected during spring
runoff. Sampling stations were located near the river mouths, but above
large urban areas to minimize the point source impact.
The suspended sediment samples were separated into size fractions of
< 0.2, 0.2 to 2, 2 to 20, and > 20 ym. These fractions correspond to the
dissolved, clay, silt and sand sizes, respectively. The mean concentrations
of suspended sediment samples were representative of the respective
tributaries. Even though total suspended sediment concentrations varied
over a wide range, the particle size distribution was fairly uniform for a
given tributary. The suspended sediment samples provided an adequate sample
set for an evaluation of the availability of phosphorus, nitrogen and trace
metals associated with suspended sediment.
In addition, bottom sediment dredge samples were collected from the
Menomonee, Genesee and Nemadji Rivers. They were also split into clay, silt
and sand fractions and were likewise analyzed for pollutant availability.
Availability of Phosphorus in Suspended Sediments
and Recessional Shoreline Soils
Characteristic differences exist in the availability of inorganic P in
suspended sediments among the tributaries to the Great Lakes. Available P
(NaOH-P), expressed as a percent of total P, averaged 14% for the Nemadji,
19% for the Genesee and about 35% for the Mauraee, Menomonee, and Grand
Rivers (Table 25). Coefficients of variation ranged from 5 to 35%.
Availability is relatively uniform among the clay, silt and sand particle
size fractions. Consequently, the available P loading for each tributary
can be estimated as the product of availability (NaOH-P expressed as
fraction of total P) and the total P loading of the tributary.
Available P, measured as NaOH-P, corresponds to non-apatite inorganic P
and represents the maximum amount of inorganic P expected to be made
available through release of inorganic P to solution (desorption).
Desorption could occur within a period of a few hours. Conversion of other
forms to available P requires mineralization of organic P or weathering of
apatite P. These processes occur at slow rates and are considered
unimportant following deposition of suspended sediments on the lake
bottom. Available P, measured as resin-P, represents inorganic P released
55
-------
Table 25. Percentage of phosphorus in suspended sediments in available and
non-available fractions*
Tributary
Genessee
Grand
Maumee
Menomonee
Nemadji
n**
14
4
4
6
11
P as % of
Resin-P
9
16
17
16
7
sediment
NaOH-P
19
37
34
37
14
total P
HC1-P
34
16
20
27
49
Coefficeint
Resin-P
60
48
34
30
34
of
variation, %
NaOH-P HC1-P
37
5
14
12
37
33
29
16
39
20
*NaOH-P + HC1-P = total inorganic P; resin-P is a part of the P in the
NaOH-P fraction.
**Number of samples.
56
-------
to solution more readily than the total NaOH-P. Resin-P is released at
solution inorganic P concentrations of about 1 pg/L, while complete release
of NaOH-P requires lower solution concentrations. Consequently, resin-P may
be a better estimate than NaOH-P of the amount of P typically released in
the Great Lakes. Resin-P represents 40 to 50% of the NaOH-P fraction.
While availability is relatively uniform for the different particle
size fractions, particle size can be an important factor in availability
through controlling the residence time of sediment in the water column.
Relatively rapid settling might limit the availability of the sand (> 20 pm)
fraction. Conversely, the clay (0.2 to 2 pm) fraction might remain
permanently suspended and be subject to long-term processes which increase
the availability of particle P. For a suspended sediment containing equal
amounts of clay, silt and sand and 35% available P (% of total P), complete
availability of inorganic P in the clay fraction would result in an
available P level corresponding to 57% rather than 35% of the sediment total
P.
In addition to availability (available P as a fraction of total P),
suspended sediment concentration and sediment total P concentration are
major factors controlling particulate available P concentrations in
tributary waters. Furthermore, tributary discharge rate is a major factor
in the loading of available P from the tributary.
Depending on the tributary, available P (NaOH-P) in suspended sediments
represents about 25 to 75% of the total available P loading (Table 26). For
the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin, available P in suspended
sediments is estimated to represent about 50% of the available P loading and
about 25% of the total P loading.
The availability of inorganic P in the recessional shoreline samples
investigated was low « 3% of total P). If these samples are
representative, the contribution of shoreline erosion to available P
loadings to the Great Lakes is relatively low.
Availability of Nitrogen in
Suspended and Bottom Sediments
The available nitrogen, consisting of the inorganic nitrogen (except
fixed ammonium) and a portion of the hydrolyzable organic nitrogen, ranged
from 52 to 73% (mean values) of the total nitrogen in the suspended
sediments (Table 27). The highest and lowest percentage of available
nitrogen occurred in the Maumee and Nemadji sediments, respectively. An
intermediate percentage (mean of 65 to 67%) of available nitrogen occurred
in the Genesee, Grand and Menomonee sediments. High proportions (mean of 16
to 21%) of the available nitrogen consisted of available inorganic nitrogen
in the Grand, Maumee and Menomonee sediments. Conversely, the percentage of
inorganic nitrogen was lower (mean of 5 to 10%) in the Genesee and Nemadji
sediments.
Mean concentrations of available nitrogen were 8.3, 4.1, 3.7, 2.0 and
1.6 mg/g in the Grand, Maumee, Menomonee, Nemadji and Genesee sediments,
57
-------
Table 26. Comparison of dissolved and particulate available P loadings in tributaries
Tributary
Genesee
Grand
Maumee
Ul
00 Menomonee
Nemadji
Discharge*
m /sec
78
114
141
2.7
11
Suspended
sediment*
mg/L
259
19
283
las"1"1"1"
312
Available
Concentration
in sediment
Vg/g
110
825
469
460
114
particulate inorganic P**
Concentration
on volume basis
Mg/L
28
16
132
64
36
Of total
particulate P
%
19
37
34
37
14
Available P from diffuse
sources***
Distribution
Annual
Tonnes
97
202
1034
15
52
loading
%++
23
58
46
52
41
Dissolved
23
57
40
40
77t
Particulate
77
43
60
60
23
*Mean "historical" values (Sonzogni, W. C., T. J. Monteith, W. N. Bach and V. C. Hughes. United States Great Lakes Tributary
Loadings. PLUARG Tech. Report to Task D, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978, 187 pp.).
**NaOH-P; measured in this investigation; concentration on a volume basis was calculated from the measured concentration in
sediment and the mean "historical" suspended sediment concentration.
***Calculated from the dissolved and total particulate P loadings for 1975 (Sonzogni et al. 1978) and the mean available P level
(NaOH-P as % of total particulate P) found for each tributary in this investigation (see column 5 above). Dissolved P is
considered to be completely available.
+Avon station samples only.
-H-Expressed as % of the total P loading.
-H-Hlean value during sampling intervals in this investigation.
tBased on unit area loading (Sonzogni et al. 1978).
-------
Table 27. Comparison of dissolved and particulate available N loadings
Available particulate N* Available N from diffuse sources**
Suspended Total Annual Distribution
Discharge*** sediment*** Concentration particulate N loading Dissolved Particulate
m3/sec
mg/L
mg/L mg/g
Tonnes %T
GENE SEE tt
78 259 0.42 1.62 67 3,836 82 69
MENOMONEE
2.7 138 0.50 3.65 65 177 90 78
MAUMEE
141 283 1.16 4.10 73 44,175 96 91
GRAND
114 19 0.16 8.28 66 6,468 81 66
NEMADJI
11 312 0.62 2.00 52 222 66 55
31
22
9
34
45
*Includes particulate flOy + NOo + NHt + amino acid N + hexosamine N measured in this
investigation. Concentration (Volume) was calculated from the observed nitrogen
concentration (wt) in the sediment and the mean historical suspended sediment concentration.
**Genesee, Grand and Maumee values are calculated from the dissolved and particulate diffuse N
loadings for 1975, reported by Sonzogni et al. (1978, see Table 26) and the mean available N
distribution (available N as % of the total particulate N) found for each tributary in this
investigation (see column 6). Menomonee and Nemadji values based on unit area loadings
(Sonzogni et al. 1978). The amount of dissolved organic N is considered relatively
insignificant.
***Mean historical values from Sonzogni et al. (1978), except Menomonee River values which are
from Bannerman, R., J. Konrad and D. Becker. Effect of Menomonee River Inputs on Lake
Michigan During Peak Flow. Wisconsin Dapt. of Natural Resources, Madison, Wis. 1977.
tExpressed as a % of the diffuse total N.
ttAvon station only.
59
-------
respectively. Those rivers containing high available nitrogen
concentrations (mg/g) also had high concentrations (mg/L) of dissolved
inorganic nitrogen and a large portion of the total sediment nitrogen
occurred as available inorganic nitrogen. The concentration of all forms of
nitrogen usually increased during low flow events. This resulted from an
increased proportion of fine particulates and an increased nitrogen
concentration in the fine particulates. The Nemadji and Genesee Rivers
contained low concentrations (mg/g) of all forms of nitrogen. This was
related to the forested character of the Nemadji Watershed and the high
proportion of nitrogen-poor sand in the Genesee sediment.
The annual available nitrogen loading from different sources was
calculated using historical values for suspended sediment concentrations,
discharge and dissolved nitrogen and the measured concentrations of
particulate available nitrogen. The annual loads were 180, 220, 3,800,
6,500 and 44,200 metric tons for the Menomonee, Nemadji, Genesee, Grand and
Maumee Rivers (Table 27). These values represent 66 to 96% of the total
nitrogen load. The annual average nitrogen loadings were influenced most
strongly by discharge rate and concentration of dissolved inorganic
nitrogen. The dissolved inorganic nitrogen contributed 55 to 91% of the
annual available N load. The low loadings in the Menomonee and Nemadji
reflected the low discharge and moderate concentration (mg/L) of particulate
available nitrogen. The Genesee and Grand Rivers had intermediate available
nitrogen loads. This resulted from high discharge even though the
particulate available nitrogen concentration (mg/L) was relatively low. The
Maumee River exhibited the highest annual loading which was due to a high
discharge rate and a high particulate and dissolved available nitrogen
concentration (mg/L).
Availability of the Trace Metals, Copper, Lead
and Zinc in Suspended and Bottom Sediments
The availability of Cu, Pb and Zn in sediments was estimated as the
fraction extracted by a hydroxylamine hydrochloride (HH-metal) or a
chelating cation exchange resin (resin-metal). The HH-metal is considered
the best estimate of the available fraction of the total trace metals in the
sediment. Available metal (HH-metal) concentrations in suspended sediments
generally represents an average of 25 to 45% of the total metal (Table
28). Availability may be higher in sediments influenced by local sources of
metals. For example, mean available metal levels ranged from 46 to 76% of
the total metal for Cu, Pb and Zn in the Menomonee River samples. Other
exceptions may also occur, such as Pb in the Genesee which averaged 60% of
the sediment total Pb.
Differences in availability among the different particle size fractions
may exist, but were not significant in the samples investigated. The resin-
metal fraction generally represents a smaller fraction than the HH-metal of
the total metal concentration. However, a consistent relationship between
HH-metal and resin-metal was not found.
60
-------
Table 28. Mean concentrations of total and available Cu, Pb
and Zn in tributary suspended sediments*
Tributary
Total metal
HH-Metal
Resin-metal
pg/L pg/g
Genesee
Menomonee
Maumee
Grand
Nemadji
Genesee
Menomonee
Maumee
Grand
Nemadji
Genesee
Menomonee
Maumee
Grand
Nemadji
27
25
11
3
10
23
87
17
5
7
67
65
48
9
32
Copper
61
146
66
80
45
Lead
51
628
97
140
32
Zinc
150
471
279
265
150
41
46
26
24
60
76
37
24
25
56
22
25
25
37
25
15
71
16
7**
8
19
12
10
*Calculated from the mean concentrations in the three
particle size fractions and the average size distribution
and concentrations of the suspended sediments.
**Based on one sample.
61
-------
8. GROUNDWATER
Field Data Quantifying Groundwater-
Surface Water Interaction
The research was a comprehensive study of the quantity and quality of
groundwater discharged into the Menomonee River System, southeastern
Wisconsin utilizing 38 observational wells. The Menomonee River Watershed
comprises three aquifer systems: the deep artesian sandstone, the Niagara
dolomite and the glacial aquifers. Groundwater discharge into the river
system is supplied mainly by the shallow glacial aquifer, with only a minor
component of discharge supplied by the dolomite aquifer. During the 1-year
study, groundwater accounted for 45 to 65% of the non-event flow in the
Menomonee River. Discharges from sewage treatment plants and of industrial
wastewaters supplied the remainder of the non-event flow.
Groundwater discharge into the Menomonee River System was calculated in
two ways. The first method involved the subtraction of all major wastewater
discharge from stream discharges during non-event periods. The second
method used Darcy's Law.
Surface water discharges were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Wastewater discharge rates were obtained from the WDNR and the
Municipalities of Germantown, Menomonee Falls and Butler. The subtraction
of wastewater discharges from non-event surface flow allowed an estimation
of true base flow, or the groundwater input into the river. This technique
is the most accurate way to estimate the groundwater component of stream
flow. Stage-discharge relationships for some reaches of the Menomonee River
System have been developed for over 10 years and non-event discharges are
measured accurately. A summary of groundwater calculations using the two
methods is presented in Table 29.
Estimation of the groundwater component of stream flow using Darcy's
Law is less accurate because of the general lack of homogeneity of the
aquifer and the relatively short time period for which the groundwater-
surface water relationships were investigated. While the technique is less
quantitative it provides a better understanding of the groundwater flow
paths and relationships between land use and quality of groundwater
discharge into the river system.
It is speculated that urbanization has significantly changed the
hydrochemistry of the glacial aquifer as compared to the regional average
for eastern Wisconsin. Chloride and sulfate are the dominant ions in
solution, while carbonates dominate the regional water quality. Dissolved
solids increased as much as 100%, with chloride and sulfate increasing by as
62
-------
Table 29. Summary of calculations of groundwater discharge to the Menomonee
O
River System (m /d)
Fall 1976 Winter 1976/77 Spring 1977 Summer 1977
A B A B A A B
Total 23,360 25,040 15,650 16,580 53,600 40,300 39,380
Average 24,000 16,200 53,600 39,840
A is use of groundwater data.
B is use of surface water data.
-------
much as 900 and 200%, respectively, over regional averages. It was
estimated that groundwater accounts for 51 to 82% of the total chloride
concentration found in the base flow of the Menomonee River.
Inorganic nitrogen was found in concentrations of < 1 mg/L of N.
Relatively high concentrations of nitrate generally were found in the
agricultural portions of the Watershed while ammonia was found in the
urbanized portion. Groundwater was estimated to supply 12 to 24% of the
base flow loadings of inorganic nitrogen while the remainder was discharged
from sewage treatment plants. Phosphate was found in low concentrations in
the groundwater.
Heavy pumpage of the Niagara dolomite and glacial aquifers from wells
near the Menomonee River has caused certain reaches of the river to lose
water to the shallow aquifer (Fig. 12). Approximately 2,840 m /d (0.75 mgd)
of stream flow is lost to the groundwater system. Bacterial analyses of the
groundwater in these areas indicated severe fecal contamination. Dye tracer
studies showed that some—if not all—bacteria in the groundwater may be
derived from leaky sewer lines.
Although metals and other toxic chemicals were not found in significant
concentrations in the groundwater, the change in hydrochemistry from
carbonate to chloride/sulfate-dominated waters indicates a deterioration in
groundwater quality. Chloride found in the shallow groundwater system is
probably produced from road salt runoff. Sulfate may arise from oxidation
of industrially produced sulfides or from landfills bordering stream
channels. To date, few base line data have been compiled for urban
watersheds and the data suggest the need for additional investigations.
Potential Impacts from Land Use Activities
This portion of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study was directed
toward obtaining data which are useful in identifying those areas of the
Watershed where land use activities could have an impact on groundwater
which discharges to the river system.
Basic data were obtained from SEWRPC, WDNR, USGS, the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission (WPCS), the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), private
trade associations, municipal governments and a variety of other sources.
Overlay map techniques were employed as an intepretive tool in many cases.
Seventeen contaminant potential maps represent the principal final product
of this analysis.
Final evaluations, as presented on the maps, fall into two major
categories: Consideration of the overall input from an areally distributed
land use (i.e., concentrations of septic tanks or croplands); or from
distinct use sites (i.e., salt storage or solid waste disposal areas). In
the former case, ranking the potential for contaminants to be released from
an area through soils interpretations appeared to be the most logical
approach in preliminary evaluation. The current lack of information on
groundwater flow in the separate subwatersheds made it impossible to go
64
-------
Fig. 12. Watertable of glacial aquifer - Fall 1976. Shaded
areas represent losing reaches of Menomonee River
System.
65
-------
beyond this first step. Assessing the contaminant potential from site-
specific uses necessitates comparing the relative probabilities for
pollutants to be released from those areas and transmitted to surface
waters. This involved an intepretive evaluation of the operational history
of the site, its position within the geologic framework and in-field,
reconnaissance analysis.
Perhaps the most significant influence on groundwater quality is the
weathering of geologic materials. However, certain quality trends can be
related to the presence of specific land use categories in the watershed.
The application of road salts is believed to be the cause of major,
widespread modification of groundwater quality. Land uses causing more
subtle changes include fertilizer and pesticide applications on cropland,
regional septic tank use, sewerline leakage and solid waste disposal
practices. It should be stressed that the analyses in this study represent
a qualitative evaluation of land use and geologic settings rather than the
outcome of comprehensive monitoring. The assessments are directed at
understanding the role of contaminant transfer to surface waters by
subsurface flow. A summary of what is believed to constitute the relative
significance of various sources is included in Table 30.
Continued research in the Watershed is warranted. From a groundwater
perspective, several different approaches can be taken. Three examples are:
a. Continue the thrust of the IJC goals having accelerated programs of
in-field groundwater monitoring carried out at various land use
sites.
b. Groundwater monitoring could be conducted as part of an overall
program to control a specific pollutant problem in the river
system.
c. Consideration of many land uses as to their local impacts on
groundwater rather than, as was done in this program, on the
eventual impact to surface waters.
Although the various kinds of land use activities which can contribute
to groundwater contamination have been identified for the Menomonee River
Watershed, the relative importance of these activities may be considerably
different in other watersheds undergoing development. The study proposes a
typical sequence of steps which might be useful in evaluating sources of
contamination in other watersheds.
Groundwater Modeling and Extrapolation to Other Watersheds
Groundwater-surface water interactions in the Menomonee River Watershed
were examined and potential sources of contamination which contribute
pollutant loads to the Menomonee River System through groundwater discharge
were identified. The third goal of the IJC project was to develop the
predictive capability necessary to facilitate extension of the findings from
the Menomonee River Watershed Study to other urban settings. The purpose of
the third phase of the groundwater subproject was to identify and test a
66
-------
Table 30. Groundwater contributions to surface water quality for the Menomonee River Basin: potential impacts from land use activities
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
?
?
?
Probable significance Areal impact
Use or other ' ' ' ' '
category Assessment Major Inter. Minor Local Regional
Weathering of Impact
geologic assured X X
materials
Road runoff " X X
Fertilizer Impact X X
and pesticide inter-
applications preted
on croplands
Septic tanks "X X
Sewer line " X XX
leakage
Solid waste " XXX
disposal
areas
Barnyards " XX
Salt storage " XX
areas
Industrial " XX
wastewater
disposal
Sewage sludge " XX
spreading
Air pollutant " XX
fallout
Metal storage Impact X X
areas unknown
Oil and gas " XX
facilities
Residential " XX X
lawns
Principal pollutants
Harmful Hazardous
Cl S0» Metals Nitrogen POi, bacteria organics Hydrocarbons
X X
XXX XXX X X
XX X
X XX
X XXX
XXXX X
X X
X
XX x
X XXX
X X
XXX x
XX X
XX X
Other users
-------
model to aid in the extrapolation process.
A groundwater quality model was identified to aid in the task of
extrapolating the findings of the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study
to other watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin. The model was applied to the
Menomonee River Watershed and calibrated using field data obtained from the
groundwater monitoring activities summarized earlier. For modeling purposes
the Watershed was divided into eight areas with similar land use and
hydrogeology (see Fig. 13). Because chloride from road salt runoff was
determined to be the major contaminant transported to the river in
groundwater, the response of the aquifer to application of road salt was
simulated in each of the modeling areas. A summary is presented in Table
31.
In 1977-78, the low density residential urban area on the west side of
the river contributed the most chlorides to the river. This area also had
the highest groundwater discharge rate, although chloride concentrations in
groundwater were not especially high. The results of the model suggest that
in most areas of the Watershed, average chloride concentrations will
increase for several years if application of road salt remains at least as
high as during 1968, the year for which chloride loading rates were
estimated for use in the model. In the future, loading rates from suburban
areas could surpass the loading rate for low density residential urban land
use. Because of the high percentage of paved surfaces in the heavy urban
areas in the lower Watershed and the resulting low groundwater recharge
rates, groundwater loading rates from these areas were relatively low.
In other watersheds, the nature and amount of contaminants transported
to the river in groundwater will depend upon the types of distribution of
land use and the hydrogeology, espcially the groundwater recharge rate.
However, in most developed watersheds, it is expected that chlorides from
road salt runoff will be a major source of contamination. In addition to
groundwater discharging to streams entering the Great Lakes, direct
discharge of groundwater to the lakes should be considered.
The model used during the present study can be used as a tool in
estimating the average concentration of a contaminant in groundwater
discharging to a stream. Groundwater loading rates may be calculated and
probable changes in groundwater quality caused by changes in land use can be
predicted. Ideally, a record of several years documenting groundwater
quality changes is needed to calibrate and establish confidence in the model
In areas for which no groundwater quality data are available, the
validity of the actual concentrations calculated by the model will depend
upon the accuracy of the input parameters. It is recommended that where
possible, an historical record be used to calibrate the model. When this is
not possible, the model is best used to gain insight into the relative
response of the system to land use changes or changes in management
practices.
68
-------
HU - Heavy urban
SU - Suburban
LU - Light urban
R-l - Rural areas
W7 - Observation
well location
I i I I I
02 4 KM
Figure 13. Modeling areas and observation well locations.
69
-------
Table 31. Simulated chloride concentrations compared to field data*
Area
Yearly average Cl
concentrations at
well sites near
the river, mg/L
B
Average for the
area, mg/L
Simulated Cl
concentrations, mg/L
HU-1
HU-2
Site: W2 West
235
Site: W2 East
147
167
187
214
HU-3
LU-1
SU-1 West
SU-1 East
SU-2
R-l
R-2
Site: W12
58 64
Site: Wl W6 W7
39 106 121 89
Site: Wl W6 W7 W8
270 113 115 20 130
Site : W5
338 174
Site : W9
34
205
150
52
64
88
90
125
165
23
42
*Compare columns A and B with C.
70
-------
9. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY
Lead and Phosphorus
Measurements of suspended particulate matter and several elements
contained in those particles indicate that anthropogenic activities in the
Menomonee River Watershed contribute significant amounts of material to the
atmosphere. For most elements, however, atmospheric deposition to Lake
Michigan or the Menomonee River is not as great as the amount discharged
from terrestrial sources. Atmospheric deposition of lead to Lake Michigan
is important. The amount of lead deposited directly in Lake Michigan during
the study period is given in Table 32.
Much of the lead exhausted from within the Watershed probably remains
there. This amounted to about 80 tonnes/yr at the time of the study.
Although soils sequester lead efficiently, a large fraction of the lead
deposited is on connected impervious surfaces (i.e., roadways). Hence, a
significant portion of the exhausted lead may reach the Menomonee River,
particularly in areas of high pavement density. Additionally, most of the
atmospheric lead collected on the snow surface probably reaches the river
during snowmelt.
Phosphorus concentrations in rain vary widely, from undetactable levels
to well over 100 yg/L. A median value is in the range of 10 to 20 Mg/L.
Annual input of phosphorus to the Watershed by all forms of precipitation is
at least 75 g/ha/yr.
Particulate phosphorus accounts for an average of 0.1% of the total
suspended mass. The fraction is lowest in winter and highest in late
summer. It is concluded that much of the phosphorus in air originates from
continental dust.
Dry deposition of phosphorus is calculated to be 108 g/ha/yr. The sum
of dry and wet deposition is somewhat lower than previous estimates.
A model utilizing multivariate regression analysis is used to predict
major emission sources contributing to the suspended dust in the Menomonee
River airshed. This source reconciliation model is sensitive to changes in
ambient aerosol composition caused by inputs of various emission sources.
PCBs and PAHs
Measurements of atmospheric PCBs over Lake Michigan suggest that more
than 70% of the amount entering the lake is deposited from the atmosphere.
The processes that control the deposition of PCBs to the water surface are
not well defined. Hence, several different models have been used to
71
-------
Table 32. Dry deposition of atmospheric lead to
Lake Michigan from Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, November 1, 1976 to April
28, 1977
Portion of lake Pb, Tonnes
Northern-two-thirds 54
Southern-one-third 69
Total 123
72
-------
mathematically describe deposition. Table 33 includes previous estimates
and the calculated rates of deposition from this study using gas and liquid
phase control models.
The composition of the PCB mixture of aerosol samples collected over
Lake Michigan contained a greater proportion of volatile isomers on
suspended particles than samples collected in Milwaukee or Chicago.
Theoretical calculations indicated that PCBs are associated with small
particles « 0.1 ym).
Many PAHs occur naturally. However, anthropogenic combustion processes
have increased emission of PAH's including some potent carcinogens.
Measurements of PAHs on suspended particulate matter collected over Lake
Michigan were used to estimate deposition rates during rainfall and dry
periods for 12 separate compounds (Tables 34 and 35). There was a high
deposition level of benz[a]pyrene—a potent carcinogen—in the southern part
of Lake Michigan.
Chemical reactions, including photooxidation which is intensified in
the presence of sulfur oxides, are a major mode for removing PAHs from the
atmosphere. This study investigated the importance of the re-emission of
PAHs from the surface microlayer of Lake Michigan to the atmosphere by
bubble ejection. This mechanism may re-introduce significant amounts of
PAHs to the atmosphere during high wind conditions. Further calculations
indicated that volatilization of PAHs from the water column is a relatively
small flux compared to wet and dry deposition to the lake surface.
73
-------
Table 33. Inputs of PCBs (kg/yr) to Lake Michigan
Sources
Industrial discharges
Atmopsheric
Streams and wastewater
TOTAL
Prior
LPC*
25,000**
2,848
750**
28,598
to 1975
GPC*
25,000**
8,655
750**
34,405
1977
LPC GPC
2,848 8,655
700** 700**
3,548 9,355
*LPC and GPC are liquid and gas phase control, respectively.
**Estimates made by Murphy, T. J. and C. P. Rzeszutko. Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in Precipitation in the Lake Michigan Basin. EPA Grant-
803915. Environmental Research laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota,
1977.
74
-------
Table 34. Dry flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan
Northern 2/3 of lake, Southern 1/3 of lake,
Compound kg/yr kg/yr
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
2, 3-Benzof luorene
Pyrene
Benz [a] anthracene
Perylene
Triphenylene
Benzo [a]pyrene
0-phenylenepyrene
Benz [ghi ] perylene
72 to 1,150
36 to 580
24 to 380
48 to 770
36 to 580
24 to 380
48 to 770
24 to 380
24 to 380
—
—
"
160 to 2,500
90 to 1,400
90 to 1,400
140 to 2,200
230 to 3,600
170 to 2,800
130 to 2,000
210 to 3,300
43 to 680
120 to 1,900
110 to 1,100
280 to 4,400
Table 35. Wet flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan
Northern 2/3 of lake, Southern 1/3 of lake,
Compound kg/yr kg/yr
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
2, 3-Benzof luorene
Pyrene
Benz [a] anthracene
Perylene
Triphenylene
Benz [a]pyrene
0-phenylenepyrene
Benz [ghi ] perylene
110
57
37
73
57
37
73
37
37
—
—
—
240
130
130
200
350
260
180
310
65
180
170
330
75
-------
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
Urban storm water pollution poses a serious threat to the water quality
of much of the Great Lakes. Any program to ameliorate water quality
problems should be directed most intensively at those areas where the
problems are most critical. Prerequisite to any remedial planning then is
the identification of those pollutants which exert or will likely exert a
significant impact on water quality and the identification of those areas
within the Lakes which are or will be affected by these pollutants.
Based upon unit loadings and present in-lake water quality, large
tracts of land in the Great Lakes basin will require little or no non-point
source control unless major land use changes occur in the future. At first
approximation, these likely include almost the entire Lake Superior basin,
much of Lake Huron, and significant portions of Lake Michigan and Lake
Ontario. However, near-shore localized water quality problems near major
urban centers along each of the Great Lakes may require localized storm
water pollution control.
Cost effective pollution control is generally greatest at those
locations where or times when pollutants are most concentrated. These
typically include, first and foremost, point source discharges, plus
construction sites, heavy industrial sites, stack emissions, deicing salts,
leaf drop, etc.... An assessment of the contribution of point sources, and
the probable point source reductions to be achieved, will indicate the
likely degree of non-point source reductions required. Where point source
controls alone will not achieve the desired level of reduction, as is
probably the case with sediment, phosphorus, lead and certain other toxins,
non-point source controls will be required. These controls should be
directed at critical land uses where pollutants are most concentrated and
cost effective control is most feasible.
Critical land uses in urban areas include construction sites (sediment
and its associated pollutants), transportation corridors (chlorides, lead
and other heavy metals), and industrial areas (heavy metals and other
toxins). Further, residential areas may contribute large amounts of
phosphorus and other nutrients during periods of leaf or seed drop. Control
of the above pollutants would be most readily achieved by controls on the
above land uses.
A strong point must also be made concerning the close correlation
between the amount of runoff from a given area and the associated pollutant
loads. The pollutant load associated with urban storm water is closely tied
to the amount of runoff from an area, which in turn is largely determined by
the area's physical development. Developing and redeveloping areas should
76
-------
be designed to retain predevelopment drainage charactersitics. Such designs
will minimize the amount of peak rates of runoff, the associated pollutant
loads, downstream flooding and streambank erosion, and will maximize
groundwater recharge. Further, not only can such construction occur at
costs often comparable to conventional drainage design, it can also preclude
or minimize possible subsequent costs associated with storm water pollution
control.
The evaluation of storm water pollution must also be addressed in
developing facility plans for upgrading combined sewered areas. Sewer
separation could result in excessive levels of storm water pollutants being
delivered to the Lakes. Sewer separation would also require extensive
reconstruction of combined sewers, which in addition to the huge social
costs, would generate large amounts of construction-related sediments.
Lastly, it may then necessitate implementation of storm water pollution
controls. Alternatively, storage and treatment of combined sewer overflows
would allow for the removal of the majority of storm water pollutants before
they enter the Lakes, would allow for the extensive use of an already
existing transport system, would not necessitate extensive sewer
reconstruction, and would preclude the need for future storm water pollution
controls.
Essential to the successful implementation and acceptance of a storm
water pollution control program is an effective information/education
program. Such a program should be developed to promote a general awareness
of urban storm water pollution and to educate target audiences concerning
their role in reducing the same. It should be geared to many different
audiences, i.e., adults, youth, engineers and urban planners, municipal
governments, etc.
Lastly, there are significant gaps in our present understanding of
various management alternatives for control of storm water pollution. The
costs and effect of specific control strategies should be carefully
evaluated. Only with such an information base can intelligent decisions
regarding cost effective pollution control be advanced.
77
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/4-79-020-A
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
S. REPORT DATE
December 1979
Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study
Volume I Summary and Recommendations
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
John G. Konrad
Gordon Chesters
G.V. Simsiman
8. PERFORMING-ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R005U2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark St., Room 932
Chicago. Illinois 60605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final -May 1974-Dec.l979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
University of Wisconsin-Water Resources Center and Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission assisted
16. ABSTRACT
This project was in support of the U.S./Canada Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The objectives are discribed under the reference-Pollution from Land U
Activities Reference Group(PLUARG). This work was done under Task C of the
work plan. Several special study areas within the Menomonee River Watershed were
sampled, analyzed, and evaluated. The water quality was measured, both surface and
groundwater. Air deposition was measured to see how the quality of atmoshperic
inputs effected the water quality of the surface runoff.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Land use
Phosphorus
Groundwater
Sediment
Heavy metals
Runoff
Rainfall
Atmospheric deposition
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Distribution to Public-Available through
NTIS-Springfield, Virginia 22151
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 826-8 '2
------- |